What makes you a scientist? Degree? Job?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the definition of a "scientist" and whether having a degree in a scientific field, such as Environmental Science, qualifies someone as a scientist. It highlights a debate where co-workers with science degrees dismiss the contributions of others without credentials, using fallacies in their arguments, particularly regarding scientific theories and evolution. The conversation emphasizes that being a scientist involves actively engaging in research and employing the scientific method, rather than merely holding a degree. Participants express frustration over the lack of understanding of basic scientific principles among those with degrees, suggesting that true scientists are those who contribute to advancing scientific knowledge. Ultimately, the consensus is that a degree alone does not make someone a scientist; active participation in scientific inquiry is essential.
xfinite
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone! I hope this is the correct spot for this question. Basically I was wondering who exactly can call themselves a scientist? I have several co-workers who have degrees in Environmental Science. We do not work in that field though. And during several debates - one in which they were arguing that Einstein hadn't "proved" anything and that it was all "theory". I was trying to explain to them that "theory" within science is not the same as in lay conversation. I explained that "theorys" explain facts. For example gravity is a fact. And the "theory of gravity" explains that fact. They responded to me - "Well, I'm a scientist. I have a degree in Environmental Science. And I'm telling you you're incorrect".

I do not have a degree in any science so basically they feel as though my understanding of anything scientific is meaningless because I have no credentials.

But back to my question. Does having a degree in Biology or Physics or Chemistry...etc...make you a scientist? Or does it simply say you have the credentials to get a job in that field of science? I'm not even sure that an Environmental Science degree is a "real" science degree actually. But I was hoping someone could shed some light on this for me!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your co-workers must be recent graduates. "Scientist" is a job title. Theories are verified and accepted to be true. They are using the same fallacy that theists frequently use. Correct me if I am wrong, because I don't have one of those fancy "science" degrees yet either.
 
Scientists are supposed to use clean proper logic.

xfinite said:
... "Well, I'm a scientist. I have a degree in Environmental Science. And I'm telling you you're incorrect"...

That's the most basic form of the appeal from autority

Obviously the use of fallacies is not very scientific.
 
xfinite said:
Hello everyone! I hope this is the correct spot for this question. Basically I was wondering who exactly can call themselves a scientist? I have several co-workers who have degrees in Environmental Science. We do not work in that field though. And during several debates - one in which they were arguing that Einstein hadn't "proved" anything and that it was all "theory". I was trying to explain to them that "theory" within science is not the same as in lay conversation. I explained that "theorys" explain facts.
For people with science type degrees, they know disturbingly little about science!
They responded to me - "Well, I'm a scientist. I have a degree in Environmental Science. And I'm telling you you're incorrect".
I would say that a degree means that at one time, they trained to be scientists but are not currently scientists. "Scientist", "engineer", "drunken bastard" - these all describe what you are doing right now.
 
QuarkCharmer said:
Your co-workers must be recent graduates. "Scientist" is a job title. Theories are verified and accepted to be true. They are using the same fallacy that theists frequently use. Correct me if I am wrong, because I don't have one of those fancy "science" degrees yet either.

You would think right? But both of them graduated about 10 years ago. I didn't want to insult them by comparing them to creationist but their arguments were exactly the same that I've seen from the religious side! They both also told me that humans stopped evolving. I explained to them that there are recent adaptations that prove that's not true. Like lactose tolerance. They laughed and said that of course small changes occur but humans won't change into a new species like we did in the past. I wasn't sure how to respond to that other then to explain to them that evolution doesn't work that way. Species don't just leap frog from one thing to the next over night. Its hard to argue though when you've got a room full of people who don't give your opinion any weight because you lack a degree. I checked out the curriculum of environmental science and you do have to take Biology 1 and 2. So I just don't understand how college graduates with passing grades don't understand the very basics of what these theories say...
 
Andre said:
Scientists are supposed to use clean proper logic.



That's the most basic form of the appeal from autority

Obviously the use of fallacies is not very scientific.

Thank you for that link! I wish I knew about that and was able to explain it during my debate with them! I need to read up on debating tactics, fallacies..etc. I KNOW something is wrong when I'm debating people when they say certain things...like they aren't using logic. But I'm not currently smart enough to point it out clearly. I tend to get emotional quickly in these situations because of this. It's so frustrating!
 
xfinite said:
they were arguing that Einstein hadn't "proved" anything
This is simply not true as you can see for yourself by reading his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". This is the famous special theory of relativity. In it he sets out to prove that the luminiferous ether is an unnecessary assumption. At the bottom of the second paragraph you will find:

A. Einstein said:
The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

In the paper, he introduces the two postulates of special relativity and uses them successfully to prove his point. What he does not prove, for obvious reasons, are the postulates themselves. They are the theory.
 
Last edited:
xfinite said:
But back to my question. Does having a degree in Biology or Physics or Chemistry...etc...make you a scientist?
No.

I know people with degrees in the sciences and then I know scientists.

To me, scientists are the ones that are actively working in growing/advancing scientific knowledge.
 
A high school teacher with a BS in physics from Caltech and a PhD in Theoretical Physics from MIT is still a high school teacher.

And to add to what people say... it sounds like your co-workers degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on. What they said is almost an insult to their field.
 
  • #10
Pengwuino said:
A high school teacher with a BS in physics from Caltech and a PhD in Theoretical Physics from MIT is still a high school teacher.

And to add to what people say... it sounds like your co-workers degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on. What they said is almost an insult to their field.
But you don't get Phd just for taking some graduate courses.

However, I think one need to be in active in the R&D field to continue claiming the title of Scientist.
 
  • #11
Active research on grant money, publishing.
 
  • #12
Having a degree doesn't make you a scientist. To be a scientist you have to employ the scientific method to research and publish your findings. And if I were you I'd buy your friends a book along the lines of "Scientific Method for Dummies".
 
  • #13
A scientist is someone with some education who agrees with you.
 
  • #14
ryan_m_b said:
Having a degree doesn't make you a scientist. To be a scientist you have to employ the scientific method to research and publish your findings. And if I were you I'd buy your friends a book along the lines of "Scientific Method for Dummies".

Perfect!

Jimmy Snyder said:
A scientist is someone with some education who agrees with you.

Agreed.
 
  • #15
Pengwuino said:
Agreed.
For example, Pengwuino is a scientist.
 
  • #16
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
ryan_m_b said:
http://bit.ly/pyy8qS
Now that's a scientist. She can call the theory of relativity a theory any time she wants. And have no fear, I will agree with her.
 
  • #18
Jimmy Snyder said:
Now that's a scientist. She can call the theory of relativity a theory any time she wants. And have no fear, I will agree with her.

Now this woman clearly isn't a scientist; http://bit.ly/pc8ty0 if she were she would know that you should have a notepad with you when looking down a microscope.
 
  • #19
ryan_m_b said:
Now this woman clearly isn't a scientist; http://bit.ly/pc8ty0 if she were she would know that you should have a notepad with you when looking down a microscope.
What microscope?
 
  • #20
Jimmy Snyder said:
What microscope?

:smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #21
From a philosophical standpoint, I would say a scientist is someone who properly uses the scientific method, regardless of what they are doing with it. They don't have to publish, they don't have to have any specific degree, and their purpose doesn't have to be to advance the breadth of scientific knowledge.

But they do have to wear a lab coat.
 
  • #22
Wow, thank you for the all the responses. As I said I don't know enough about debating tactics to know how to explain clearly why someone is incorrect when they use fallacies. I'm learning though. It's super frustrating! And like I said I just don't understand how people can graduate with so many science classes under their belts and not understand what science is and what science is not. I mean for their curriculums they had to take Biology 1/2, Organic Chem 1/2, Physics 1...how in the world can you pass those and not understand the basics?!

I got into it again with one of them yesterday when I told him that I was entirely open to the possibility that I was wrong on a particular problem here at work. And he said "You?! Mr. Science? YOU are open to being wrong?"...basically saying that scientists (even though they love pointing out I have no credentials...and I do NOT claim to be one) aren't open to being wrong. So I said "Dude you have it wrong. If scientists were not open to being wrong then no progress would ever be made in technology..medicine..etc. Its religion that is dogmatic and feels they have all the answers even though they have done no work and offer nothing that is testable"...as usual he blew off what I said.
 
  • #23
xfinite said:
Wow, thank you for the all the responses. As I said I don't know enough about debating tactics to know how to explain clearly why someone is incorrect when they use fallacies. I'm learning though. It's super frustrating! And like I said I just don't understand how people can graduate with so many science classes under their belts and not understand what science is and what science is not. I mean for their curriculums they had to take Biology 1/2, Organic Chem 1/2, Physics 1...how in the world can you pass those and not understand the basics?!

I got into it again with one of them yesterday when I told him that I was entirely open to the possibility that I was wrong on a particular problem here at work. And he said "You?! Mr. Science? YOU are open to being wrong?"...basically saying that scientists (even though they love pointing out I have no credentials...and I do NOT claim to be one) aren't open to being wrong. So I said "Dude you have it wrong. If scientists were not open to being wrong then no progress would ever be made in technology..medicine..etc. Its religion that is dogmatic and feels they have all the answers even though they have done no work and offer nothing that is testable"...as usual he blew off what I said.

Send them to PF directly and tell them to post some questions :devil:
 
  • #24
ryan_m_b said:
Send them to PF directly and tell them to post some questions :devil:

I really want to! But my dilemma is that I do like these guys. All good guys. And working directly with each other we got to get along. So I normally just laugh and go along with their comments but damn...it aggravates me! I need to figure out a way to get them to look on here without exposing myself as a member...lol.
 
  • #25
Pengwuino said:
... What they said is almost an insult to their field.

Why is the word "almost" showing up here?
 
  • #26
phinds said:
Why is the word "almost" showing up here?

Good question...
 
  • #27
Evo said:
[...]

To me, scientists are the ones that are actively working in growing/advancing scientific knowledge.

This is the only definition that has ever satisfied me.
 

Similar threads

Insights Is Science an Authority? How to View Announcements from Scientists
2
Replies
95
Views
7K
How can some scientists deal with many different subjects?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Job Skills Degrees with actual guaranteed jobs after graduation?
2
Replies
80
Views
3K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
Replies
12
Views
3K
What would you do if you cannot become a scientist?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Advice for the struggles of an independent scientist
Replies
19
Views
2K
Is it possible to make science as marketable as Engineering?
Replies
42
Views
5K
Physics Move from technician to scientist
Replies
19
Views
2K
Does a college degree result in a job?
Replies
20
Views
7K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top