Talk:Scientist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Women in science 2 Old Edits 2.1 little guru's reply 2.2 Mark K's reply 2.3 Jon the Geek's reply 2.4 Ivan's Reply 3 Who Determines Whom is a "Scientist"? 4 Keep category clear 5 NPOV 6 Image:Cajal.gif 7 Salary 8 Critical View ?? 9 Of our time? 10 Types of Scientists - The Correct Classification for Geographers 11 Academics vs scientists 12 Vandalism 13 Scientists vs lay people 14 Errors 15 This article's tags 15.1 Parts that need additional citations for verification 15.2 Parts that contain original research or unverified claims 16 Too many links (EDIT: Moved from top of page and started new thread for it 17 Einstein: Poor scientist Example (EDIT: Split topic "Too many links")

[edit] Women in science

There should only be a women in science section if there is also a men in science section also. While some of the content in the section may merit being in article, simple being a woman in science does not make one more noteworthy than being a man in science, and the entire article should refer to scientists as scientists, not distinguish between a male scientist or a female scientist.

I strongly agree with this post. The place for discussing women's contribution to a traditionally male-dominated field in a time where this was not the norm is in an article about feminism/women's rights or similar. Particularly in an article that describes a profession that prides itself on objectivity, it seems patronising to have a separate section for women. Though I'm sure the intentions are good I think this section should be removed and the contributions of the various female scientists should be included throughout the article and the criteria for inclusion should be the same as for male scientists. Also, as the previous post said, scientists should be referred to as scientists and no special gender description is necessary.

[edit] Old Edits

Note: title added by Karol 16:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Title corrected. No need of "untitled"

---

Philosophy is not part of science. They don't use scientific method.

--Taw

[edit] little guru's reply

You're right about that Taw: Philosophy is NOT part of Science, but Science IS part of Philosophy actually Epistemology which is a branch of it.

Hmm, so philosophers do not use the scientific method... O.K. you may be right, so please enlighten us telling what do they use... Thnx :)

P.S. do you know a good web site to learn Polish, proscia?

--little guru

[edit] Mark K's reply

Mathematics is not a science, it does not use the scientific method to verify the truth of its assertions, rather it uses its own methodology (axioms + logic).

On whether science is part of philosophy, I think the philosophers would like to think that is the case, but I think any discipline involving thought could be claimed under one of philosophies broad banners, even perhaps astrology.

Mark K

[edit] Jon the Geek's reply

I'd argue that not all science comes about as a consequence of the scientific method. Sometimes its a vision, a jolt of inspiration (perhaps madness), or plain dumb luck (for example, Fleming's mold infested petri dishes that led to penicillin). The value of the scientific method is as a means to validate truth, in a scientific sense. - Dwmyers

If Fleming hadn't validated his finding through the scientific method, we would not know that penicillin is an antiobiotic. Dumb luck and inspiration can produce interesting observations and hypotheses, but scientists still test these hypotheses using the scientific method. Jon the Geek 14:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan's Reply

"... and experiments as they are usually conceived are unable to supply mathematical proof" An experiment cannot supply a proof to any (non-trivial) theory. Experiments are used to disprove or confirm (not to prove) a theory. Thus, the stated difference between mathematics and sciences is badly formulated. Rather, a proof in its proper sense is present only in mathematics, not in any science. User:Ivan 07:20, August 12, 2005 (GMT)

[edit] Who Determines Whom is a "Scientist"?

EDIT: Corrected use of a new talk thread. Remember to put 2 ='s on each side of the title if you want to start a new thread. Thanks How do you determine when a person is worthy to be considered a "Scientist"?

Is it when they earn a Masters degree or a Doctorate, and/or have X years of experience? For example MDs and Attorneys have specific exams they must pass before they can legally practice their professions. This should be considered an important question because the media is constantly referring to quotations and research by "Scientists".

the answer is the term is used subjectively - there is no hard and fast definition and that s not a problem. i d say most people start using it to refer to someone who has reached acclaim in a field or sub-field of the natural sciences and who holds a PhD, and at times in reference to people with acclaim in social science. having acclaim is in turn relative and may be of the local sort (hence one could refer to a 'local scientist'). someone with a master s degree in a scientific field could refer to themselves (somewhat presumptiously) as a scientist, but it s really someone with a PhD, isn t it. -Mayumashu 03:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

In general, I think the term can safely be applied to people who are actively doing research that employs the scientific method. I wouldn't say a PhD is required -- most academics I know wouldn't flinch at having senior PhD grad students doing scientific research called scientists, and a few industrial scientists probably don't have PhDs. And before the 20th century, a lot of scientists didn't get PhDs. However, there is a cultural perception (as the above comments show) that "scientist" is a title to be bestowed rather than a job description. As a result, people in research sometimes feel calling themselves scientists sounds a bit presumptuous. Also, we're trained to be precise, so less ambiguous terms like "molecular biologist", or "inorganic chemist", or "associate professor of computer science" are probably more common among working-stiff scientists. --Misterwindupbird 11:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a scientist is simply someone who practices science. Most scientists would have formal qualifications, not because that is what makes them scientists, but because you generally need those qualifications to practice it. Although it is less common these days with the increasing complexity and cost of science, there are many historical examples of people who have made contributions to science without formal qualifications. For example, amateur astronomers have made large contributions to the field by finding comets and the like. Many great palaeontological finds were made by amateurs (e.g. Mary Anning). Mozzie 05:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Misterwindupbird makes a good point about the cultural perception of what it means to be a scientist. The general consensus among the various dictionaries and other reference sources I consulted is that a scientist is one who is learned in one or more of the sciences. I think most of the public would tend to agree with that definition. So what does it mean to be learned? I think that's where the real problem lies. In my experience, much of the public feels that a person is only learned if they have some sort of official credentials (e.g. a university degree). The thing is, it's quite possible, and by no means uncommon, for an individual to develop a high-level of skill, ability, and experience in the sciences without ever setting foot inside a college classroom. Albert Einstein (whose status as a scientist few would dispute) felt the regimented school environment was in fact quite bad for learning for creativity. Nikola Tesla never completed secondary-school, only making it through one semester of his junior year. Galileo Galilei was also a college dropout. These big names show just how possible it is to become quite learned by simply studying and doing. If they weren't scientists, then I don't know who is. Siggimoo 05:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A few paragraphs down on this page is a very good statement:

In general, it can be stated that a scientist builds in order to learn, but an engineer learns in order to build.

This summarizes my own feelings about science and engineering. They tend to be similar but with different products. Engineering produces tangible or otherwise usable things, whereas science produces knowledge. Thus, a scientist would be a person who works to produce knowledge. Siggimoo 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to whether anyone thinks medical doctors (and other health professionals too I guess) should be included under the banner of scientists? Maybe health scientists? I would tend to think that the health professions are more akin to engineers in the sense that they acquire a broad understanding of many areas of science (anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, psychology, sociology, biochemistry, etc etc albeit not in the detail that a scientist in one given area would know) in order to apply them to the clinical situation and solve clinical problems. In saying that, medicine does not rely solely on scientific knowledge to manage the clinical situation but also on communication and other clinical skills.I guess the question is, should we include people with applied science degrees under the greater banner of scientists? MJ 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep category clear

Engineers and Mathematicians are not Scientists. I will let you fight it out about "computer science" vs. "computer engineering". -- Fplay 08:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Can we do away with the huge rant in the middle of the article? It may be correct but it is certainly not NPOV. 210.49.88.162 12:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's growing on the article. I'm moving that content here, by paragraph, because probably some of it could be scrapped for other contexts.

1. In fact, there is a continuum from the most theoretical to the most empirical sciences, with no clear-cut boundaries. It is hubris to insist on re-categorizing mathematics, which plays such a central role in all quantitative reasoning. In terms of personality, interests, training, and professional activity, there is little difference between applied mathematicians and theoretical physicists, and even theoretical engineers like Claude Shannon. There are many notable examples of people who have moved back and forth among these disciplines. Descartes not only invented analytic geometry, but formulated his own theory of mechanics, and advanced ideas about the origins of animal movement and perception, yet is known principally as a philosopher. Newton extended Descartes' mathematics by inventing calculus (as did Leibniz), but is also regarded as the founder of classical mechanics and investigated light and optics. Fourier founded a new branch of mathematics, infinite, periodic series, but studied heat flow and infrared radiation, and discovered the greenhouse effect. Minkowski provided the four-dimensional space-time interpretation for Einstein's special relativity. It would be absurd to deny that the mathematicians von Neumann, Turing, Khinchin, Markov and Wiener made seminal contributions to science, including the theory behind computers and the foundations of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Can you go to bed as a mathematician and wake up as a physicist?

2. If you say that engineers want to know how to solve a problem and implement the solution, you have also just described what most scientists do, though perhaps with different goals. The conventional wisdom is that scientists investigate phenomena, whereas engineers are concerned with solutions to practical problems. But mechanical, electrical, chemical and aerospace engineers are often at the forefront of investigating new phenomena.

3. In general, it can be stated that a scientist builds in order to learn, but an engineer learns in order to build.

4. Another pointless gambit is to insist on a dichotomy between experimental sciences, and purely "observational" sciences such as astronomy, meteorology, oceanography and seismology. But, to comment on only one, astronomers have done basic research in optics, charge-coupled devices, and in recent decades, have sent space probes to other planets, in addition to using the Hubble Telescope. And in almost every field these days, computer modeling is both a mathematical and an experimental venture. Microwave spectroscopy has now identified dozens of organic molecules in interstellar space, requiring laboratory experimentation (and computer simulation) to confirm the observational data, and starting a new branch of chemistry.

5. It may be a somewhat arbitrary decision about who is a scientist. Classification schemes establish categories with paradigms. Semantic distinctions are essential for thought and language, but outside of mathematics, there are seldom well-defined boundaries and disjoint sets. It's easy to recognize a typical blue or green, but pointless to quibble about the exact dividing line.

6. Is an inventor a scientist? Charles Goodyear discovered vulcanization of rubber, but did his lack of training and haphazard work show he wasn't a "real" scientist? Do amazing discoveries suffice to get you into the club? Was Edison a scientist? Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., the American physician, poet and essayist, noted that sepsis in women following childbirth was spread by the hands of doctors and nurses (four years before Semmelweis). Was he a scientist? Suppose a chemist becomes a university president; is he still a scientist?

7. Einstein's first wife, Mileva Marić, may have assisted in his 1905 special theory of relativity. Women are known to have contributed to science since the 19th century, e.g., Ada Lovelace, who worked on Charles Babbage's analytical computing engine, and after whom the Ada programming language is named. From earlier times, there is Hypatia of Alexandria (circa 380-415 AD). There may well have been others; history didn't welcome them. In spite of any (unproven) left-brain/right-brain conjectures, all the women cited here were mathematicians.

8. More substantial questions: Is an historian a scientist? A physician? A psychoanalyst?

Karol 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cajal.gif

I have removed this image from this article as it is marked as 'fair use'. Although the use of this image in the Santiago Ramón y Cajal article may qualify as fair use, I fail to see how its use in this article does. JeremyA 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salary

What is the approximate average salary of a scientist, and how does it differ amungst different fields.

It varies, according to the length of a piece of rope.

Seriously, it's all over the map. In industry scientists tend to make considerably more than in academia. In biotech, talented and lucky scientists command salaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, plus stock options; in archaeology, salaries are much lower. In the late 20th century it was conventional wisdom that getting a Ph.D. in physics lost you money on average compared to a B.Sc. in the same field, because industrial experience tended to count more than academic experience. Even within a particular field, salaries vary depending on type of position, location in the country, and funding source -- "soft money" positions tend to have slightly higher salaries than pure academic positions, in part because of the higher risk associated with a lifetime of research doled out in 3-5 year chunks.

IMHO, most practicing research scientists appear to be motivated more by love of the research than by money, though both motivations are clearly present to different degrees in different individuals. The skills required to support a soft-money research team are similar to the skills needed for to be a business entrepreneur, so folks who are motivated more by the need to profit tend to leave science and enter industry. As an example: at each stage in my career (I am a solar astrophysicist) I have been offered jobs outside astrophysics with salaries 2x - 3x those available to me within the field. zowie 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical View ??

I fully admit that it is difficult to create and maintain an holistic content balance for this intrinsically heterogenic topic, but I also have to say that this is one of the worst things I have ever read in Wikipedia. I consider myself a strong supporter of the idea of moving the notion of Wikipedia in academia from a primary source of scientific investigation to a citable reference. But such a one-sided article which barely mentions anything besides the so-called hard side of science (count the keywords if you like), will undermine its very subject.

I strongly suggest to rethink not only the structure of this article, but to develop a more critical and holistic point of view. If this article is about this profession, starting points can be drawn from the traditional relation between society and science, to shed a light on the different roles a scientist had to play in the past. Concerning the present, it would be interesting, if we could find (in literature) some clusters to categorise what scientist actually do when they make science. Where do they work? How do they communicate? What is it that makes their discourse scientific? Please, let science be more than engineers, physicists and machines! Bakterius 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of our time?

The picture of Albert Einstein says this "The physicist Albert Einstein is probably the most famous scientist of our time." As I understand it, he did his work from the very early to the mid 20th century. His early stuff is around a century old!!! This really isn't our time any more, we've moved on. Anyway, thats just my opinion. -OOPSIE- 03:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Scientists - The Correct Classification for Geographers

The original edit adding "geographers" to "types of scientists" did so mutually exclusive of social/earth sciences. It has since been moved to social sciences; however, the geographic sciences are rooted heavily in both natural/physical science and social science. Therefore, I vote to move and keep "geographers" separate from either the earth or the social science classifications as this will potentially confuse readers. -Carthaginienses

hi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.151.38 (talk) 21:31, August 20, 2007 (UTC) @(^^)@ <---monkey!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.177.206 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not abuse the talk system. Thanks -Tom140996

[edit] Academics vs scientists

Please see Talk:Academia#Academics_vs_scientists for discussion of category merge proposal.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I just removed some vandalism "erin is soooooo sexy", as was to be read on top of the page, isn't really a very scientific text, but could better be interpreted as violence and\or vandalism. Thafadi Adahabou 09:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists vs lay people

"However, lay people in Western societies have little understanding of the day to day activities of professional scientists and scientists hardly understand lay peoples' needs." The second part hardly seems very precise or correct. What specific needs of lay people would the average scientist not understand?Kenneth Charles (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that complete junk. 129.16.97.227 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

The article claims that philosophers are scientists and that the "first scientist" came about after the Greeks (Aristotle, anyone?). I would think it better to remove the first scientist section because there may be a few different opinions of when science started; for some it was the Muslim man listed, for others it was Aristotle, and for others it was by Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes in the Scientific Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.13.167 (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article's tags

[edit] Parts that need additional citations for verification

What part of the article needs reliable references? Please list them in bullet format. J. D. Redding

No response in a week. Removing. J. D. Redding 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parts that contain original research or unverified claims

What part of the article contain original research or unverified claims? Please list them in bullet format. J. D. Redding No response in a week. Removing. J. D. Redding 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many links (EDIT: Moved from top of page and started new thread for it

76.251.68.23 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AAARRRRGGGGG - This page is a link salad. What can be done to reduce the clutter?

[edit] Einstein: Poor scientist Example (EDIT: Split topic "Too many links")

Einstein is a poor example of a Scientist. As a mathematician and a physical theorist, he did not practice scientific method. This is a fundamental concept that apparently few people understand. Callate el ocico piche gringo tu que sabes de Einstein!! pedaso de white boy!!