science teachers who call themselves scientists

[Czarzy]

This concerns a list-serve of high school advanced placement biology teachers.

In one thread, on the topic of Bush's latest evolution statement, there was a reply which contained the statement that the replier is a scientist. (Although s/he teaches AP biology in a high school). Another teacher wrote in and said not only that was she a scientist but her students are, too, and that anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it is, too. And there were more replies from other science educators who call themselves scientists.

There is nothing less prestigious about being a science educator than being a scientist. They are both important jobs. But there is a difference: scientists provide NEW scientific information through their work and discoveries, their work is subject to rigorous peer review, etc; science educators then disseminate that information to the public, as well as educate them about the processes of science. There is a significant difference between being a scientist, a science technologist, and a science educator.

If one were to put somewhere on one's job application that you were a scientist, it would imply something other than that you were a science teacher. I think that the general public has those same expectations.

Why is this misrepresentation significant? Public perception of the opinions of scientists on science: eg, when you look on the discovery institute's list of scientists who deny evolution, how many of them are scientists vs. how many are science educators and science technologists (such as family physicians, pathologists, and engineers)?

[Beth]

I agree with the teacher who says that "anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it is too". I'll grant you they aren't professional scientists, which is perhaps your complaint. I'm not a professional cook, but I can still legimately call myself a cook. I do, after all, prepare meals for others on a regular basis. Likewise, I think those teachers can call themselves scientists if they choose.

I'm not sure I understand your beef with it. I seriously doubt they are writing down "scientist" on job applications rather than "science teacher". And I don't think the general public would be any more confused by their claims to be scientists than by my claim to be a cook.

Beth

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by Beth


And I don't think the general public would be any more confused by their claims to be scientists than by my claim to be a cook.


I think they might. If you told someone you were a cook, they would probably assume you are a professional cook who is paid by a restaurant to make food for the public, and that your cooking skills would therefore be significantly better than someone who opens a tin of beans for their kids.

I think if you expect your opinion to carry more weight if you call yourself a scientist when you are a science teacher, then you are being dishonest. However, the distinction is that scientists get paid to advance scientific knowledge through experimentation and research, and I see no reason why a science teacher cannot claim that if it is true of them as an individual. If it is not true of them and the work they do, then they should be honest about their job title. Otherwise the public might think, for example, that they are more qualified than they actually are (you don't need a PhD to be a teacher) and therefore that their opinions about, say, intelligent design, carry more authority than they do.

Do you think Richard Feynman's students saw him as a physicist or a teacher?

[gg5000]

The problem with the term scientist these days, is that in this current climate of religious zeal that we're experiencing in this country, people claim to be scientists, when in reality they do not hold any science degrees, haven't written any peer reviewed papers, and haven't done any scientific research.

Being a scientist, at the end of the day, should be a term that creates no controversy or doubts at all.

In the United States we expect a person calling themselves a physician to have a degree from an accredited medical college, and at the very least to have completed specific training to be able to treat patients. Unfortunately now, people who have non-science backgrounds are calling themselves scientists, when their agenda has everything to do with lobbying and special interests, and nothing to do with science. Just look at the "intelligent design" set.

In the interest of science and the advancement of reason in these times of religious fervor, one should demand that anyone claiming to be a scientist, present proof or at least credentials for such claim. Educators, unless degreed in science and actively doing research and experimentation in specific scientific areas, are not by definition scientists. While there are many scientists who happen to have a job teaching about science, let us please not confuse educators with scientists. Not to take any importance away from the educators... after all, if it wasn't for them, the scientific community could not grow.

A scientist must follow a methodology that has been proven to work (if not flawlessly) because any and all claims are checked against the scrutiny of the entire scientific community of a given field. The scientific community is completely open to uncovering errors in its findings and making corrections, which is the polar opposite of religion which is dogmatic and not open to challenges.

We cannot afford (in the name of progress, science and common sense) calling just anyone who is curious about science a scientist.

And it isn't that we need that distinction to specifically separate the educators from the scientists... we need that distinction to separate the scammers, the cheats, the zealots and the special religious interests from the scientists who are working every day to advance the human condition. And furthermore, I think calling educators anything different takes importance away from what they do which is also crucial to our society.

The difference Beth, with being a cook and cooking for your family, is that nobody can make billion dollar decisions, or legislate in favor of a particular special interest based on your meatloaf.

However, they do those things based on what some call "science". Heck, they even claim that "intelligent design" is a scientific point of view.... If we care about progress, we simply cannot stand by that.

ONLY SCIENTISTS ARE SCIENTISTS.

[Beth]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
I think they might. If you told someone you were a cook, they would probably assume you are a professional cook who is paid by a restaurant to make food for the public, and that your cooking skills would therefore be significantly better than someone who opens a tin of beans for their kids.

Depends on the context. If I call myself a cook, it should be clear from the context that it's an avocation and it implies I can do more than open a tin of beans. If that's not clear, then it's arguable that I have been dishonest. However, in the context the OP wrote about, it seemed clear that the people declaring themselves to be scientists were teachers by profession. Thus, I think it was clear what they meant by the designation - that is, it was not a vocational declaration.

I think if you expect your opinion to carry more weight if you call yourself a scientist when you are a science teacher, then you are being dishonest. True, but it's not clear that anyone had that expectation.

However, the distinction is that scientists get paid to advance scientific knowledge through experimentation and research, and I see no reason why a science teacher cannot claim that if it is true of them as an individual. If it is not true of them and the work they do, then they should be honest about their job title. Otherwise the public might think, for example, that they are more qualified than they actually are (you don't need a PhD to be a teacher) and therefore that their opinions about, say, intelligent design, carry more authority than they do.

I just don't see this as a problem in this context, but maybe that's just me. When I read stuff posted on internet forums, I don't care or pay much attention to claimed titles. Since credentials cannot be easily checked and few people give their full names, I judge arguments based on their own merit and validity, not the claimed credentials of the writer. If their argument depends on their creditials, then it's probably not a very solid argument.

Scientists don't generally claim that people should believe them because they are scientists, but because they have done research and come to conclusions based on that research. You can take away their degrees and their titles, the conclusions should remain.

Do you think Richard Feynman's students saw him as a physicist or a teacher?

I imagine his students thought him both. Professionally, he was.

[Beth]

Originally posted by gg5000
We cannot afford (in the name of progress, science and common sense) calling just anyone who is curious about science a scientist.

It was "anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it". I think that's a pretty good general definition of scientist. But, then again, my opinion is that it's important for people to understand that science is something they can do themselves. That it isn't (and shouldn't be) confined to people with advanced degrees and access to expensive lab equipment. Further, I think it's important for science teachers to communicate this attitude to their students, so I'm glad to hear about science teachers who think of themselves and their students as being scientists. Personally, I wish there were as many people who considered themselves to be competent scientists as there are that consider themselves to be competent cooks - even if some of them weren't any more competent than some of the people who call themselves cooks. :)


The difference Beth, with being a cook and cooking for your family, is that nobody can make billion dollar decisions, or legislate in favor of a particular special interest based on your meatloaf.

Even if I were a professional cook, nobody would be making billion dollar decisions or basing legislation on my terrific meatloaf recipe.

However, they do those things based on what some call "science". Heck, they even claim that "intelligent design" is a scientific point of view.... If we care about progress, we simply cannot stand by that.
ONLY SCIENTISTS ARE SCIENTISTS.

I don't think that problem is due to science teachers calling themselves scientists. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your premise. If we care about progress, we'll encourage everyone to be a scientist, not just those few who managed to get Ph.D's and research positions.

Beth

[crimresearch]

Teaching is a fine career, but it doesn't always make for clarity to refer to the teacher as the thing they are teaching.

I know many music teachers who wouldn't last a minute as a professional musician. The person who taught Mark Spitz how to swim didn't do so by showing Mark how they had won their gold medalss, AFAIK.

For years, the US Navy had their student pilots learn the basics of flying on simulators, with teachers who had never flown a plane at all.
Some folks can be great law school professors without ever practicing a lick of law.

And there isn't anything wrong with teaching science at any level...nor with making the distinction between being a science teacher, and being a practitioner.

[Czarzy]

To tell a student that s/he is thinking scientifically, or that s/he is thinking like a scientist, is a great motivator. But telling them that they actually ARE scientists then gives them the impression that whatever opinions they came up with, after a few minutes of thought, have just as much likelihood of being the way the natural world works as someone who has devoted years of gathering physical evidence and inferring from it. So why should they give any import to new discoveries made by "scientists:? With the loose term of scientist, that could be Brad and Jen down the street who just thought of something.

If the usage of the word scientist were to mean everyone with natural curiosity who tries to find out what is already known, then when one reads or hears that scientists infer this or that, it would just mean that everyone thinks this or that .... instead of assuming that the inference is the result of stringent testing, observations, peer review, and conclusions using reasoning using Occam’s razor (or that of the same ilk) applied to proposed physical mechanisms, like those are that are coming from people who are members of Sigma Xi, etc.

[gg5000]

Beth, I wonder if some of what we're discussing is simply about semantics.

I personally couldn't be more in favor of encouraging anyone to be a STUDENT of science.

Everyone benefits from knowing more about science, and the more people who do, the better it is for society as a whole. But if you follow my reasoning, what we need are folks who have done all the academic work to have a solid, clear and thorough understanding of their particular field, and who have passed the tests that prove such academic understanding.

If we're on the same page, I would imagine that you'd agree with me that just because you're required to take science courses when studying statistics, that does not make you a scientist, no matter how much you tout yourself as such. I don't think that problem is due to science teachers calling themselves scientists.

And I agree with you entirely. The bit of it that I disagree with you about, is using the term scientist with such liberty.

Just think of it. Let's say you had to go to an oncologist. Some guy who teaches about oncology, or someone who's studying oncology in college IS NOT AN ONCOLOGIST, and you wouldn't place your health or the health of your loved ones in their hands.

There's a reason why doctors have to work for years and years before they can call themselves that. Why shouldn't it be the same for any other scientific specialty? I just can't buy the premise that you should call people studying about science SCIENTISTS. They are students.

But again, the issue is not to protect ourselves from educators. Not even close. My point is that now, more than ever, science is being threatened by religious zealotry.

In this atmosphere of deception, greed, misinformation and cover-ups, we simply cannot fool around with who's a scientist and who isn't.

Please encourage any and every child to study science. Please encourage any and every adult to study MORE about science. But don't confuse what a scientist is.

I might even consider it OK to call 4th graders scientists if they're conducting experiments and such, but kind of in the same spirit as calling little children "big boy, or big girl" when they're being good.

No adult without a science degree should be referred to as a scientist.

I insist that indeed, only the people with PhD's have a right to call themselves full fledged scientists. But lets encourage the whole of society to be STUDENTS of science.

[Beth]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And there isn't anything wrong with teaching science at any level...nor with making the distinction between being a science teacher, and being a practitioner.

I don't think the problem is with making the distinction, but with insisting that everyone else make that distinction. Music teachers might not be what you consider a professional musicians, but they are certainly musicians and would likely be insulted if you told them they are not. Likewise, science teachers may well consider themselves scientists even though the difference in what they can do compared to professional scientists may be even greater than that of music teachers and professional musicians.

Beth

[Beth]

Originally posted by Czarzy
If the usage of the word scientist were to mean everyone with natural curiosity who tries to find out what is already known, then when one reads or hears that scientists infer this or that, it would just mean that everyone thinks this or that .... instead of assuming that the inference is the result of stringent testing, observations, peer review, and conclusions using reasoning using Occam’s razor (or that of the same ilk) applied to proposed physical mechanisms, like those are that are coming from people who are members of Sigma Xi, etc.

People don't have any trouble distinguishing between the expected level of expertise for professional cooks or professional musicians as opposed to non-professionals. I don't think that's a problem. As long as the distinction regarding professional vs. non-professional is clear (and I gather it was in your original discussion) it seems as reasonable for science teachers to say they are scientists as it is for music teachers to say that they are musicians.

Beth

[gg5000]

As it happens Beth, I am a proffesional musician, and I also teach music part time. In this business, we have a (mean) saying: Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach. You've heard that I'm sure. I can't speak for the science community, but I bet you there's some of that in their field as well.

From a musical stand point, the issue is that the folks who spend their lives showing the fundamentals of instruments and music to students 8 hours a day, don't have the time or the inclination to practice their own skills as performers, as much as those who make a living playing music.

But interestingly, the term musician isn't ever associated with any kind of education. There are marvelous self taught musicians, and there are academics with a dismal concept of performance.

And, what's funny is that if you're teaching music, more often than not you'll have to have some kind of music degree or a music education degree, when that is simply NEVER required of a performer.

The fact is, my best teachers were always talented as educators, but not as performers. The teachers whom I respected as performers lacked a thorough didactical knowledge which made them less than great teachers.

See, to me educators are invaluable. Let's give them their due:

Don't call them musicians, accountants, engineers or scientists. Lets just call them TEACHERS. Their profession deserves much more respect than it gets.

[Beth]

Originally posted by gg5000
If we're on the same page, I would imagine that you'd agree with me that just because you're required to take science courses when studying statistics, that does not make you a scientist, no matter how much you tout yourself as such.

Actually, you're not required to take any science courses when studying statistics. :)



The bit of it that I disagree with you about, is using the term scientist with such liberty.


We'll just have to disagree then. I think that people should be encouraged to think of themselves as scientists and to be more aware of how they can apply scientific methodologies to everyday aspects of their lives.

The title "scientist" is very general one, much as "cook" or "musician". I don't think it's any more appropriate to restrict the title of scientist to professionals with degrees anymore than it would be appropriate to restrict the title of cook or musician in that way.

I insist that indeed, only the people with PhD's have a right to call themselves full fledged scientists. But lets encourage the whole of society to be STUDENTS of science.

All right. You can insist all you like :) just don't expect other people to agree or restrict themselves to using the term in the way you would like.

Beth

[gg5000]

The title "scientist" is very general one, much as "cook" or "musician".

Ok, that's the core of my disagreement with you. Yes. Anyone can be a cook. Anyone can be a musician. Anyone CANNOT be a scientist, unless they have a scientific degree...

Otherwise I'd be a scientist for having done experiments in my bathroom with potassium chlorate and a text book.

No dear Beth. The word scientist means only one thing.

Lets get more opinions on this from this board. I wonder what Mr. Randi would say about what constitutes a scientist...

[Beth]

Originally posted by gg5000
Ok, that's the core of my disagreement with you. Yes. Anyone can be a cook. Anyone can be a musician. Anyone CANNOT be a scientist, unless they have a scientific degree...

Otherwise I'd be a scientist for having done experiments in my bathroom with potassium chlorate and a text book.

No dear Beth. The word scientist means only one thing.

Lets get more opinions on this from this board. I wonder what Mr. Randi would say about what constitutes a scientist...

You're right. That is the crux of our disagreement. I think that anyone who cooks is a cook, anyone who makes music is a musician, and anyone who does science is a scientist. Your bathroom experiments are sufficient to make you a scientist just as cooking dinner from a recipe book is sufficient to make me a cook. Of course, by no stretch of the imagination can I be considered a musician :).

[Czarzy]

So, when a list such as "400 Scientists Who Oppose Evolution" at the Discovery Institute creationist (ID) site is posted, you are confident that the general public realizes that the list comprises anyone who wonders about the natural world and tries to discover what is known, instead of thinking that it is a list of people whose livelihood depends on their being as objective as possible, basing their inferences on the presumption that physical phenomena are due to physically mechanisms, subject to rigourous peer review, etc, (ie, the more precise term of scientist)?

[Jorghnassen]

Batman's a scientist.

/sorry. I just love that line.

[Czarzy]

Jorghnassen: you said:

"Batman's a scientist.
/sorry. I just love that line."

"Batman's a scientist." That IS funny and ironic.

Will you explain why that is so?

Plea--se, s'il vous plait? (for those who don't see its relationship to this thread?)

[Fordama]

Some web definitions of scientist (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+scientist&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial)

One important part is whether one is an "expert" in a scientific field. Obviously the definition of "expert" isn't exact, but in modern society we confer various degrees from our universities to "certify" an expertise in a field.

If one has a degree in a science, I think it's more than reasonable to consider them a scientist--especially if they are working in a field related to that science.

Fordama

[gg5000]

Ok, I'm thinking consensus says that you don't really make up meanings for certain words, and science and scientist would fall under that category.

You're a smart kid Beth... you can see what we are saying.

NOT anyone with a science book and some test tubes is a scientist. Please know it in your heart. And of all the different things that people can say they are but really aren't, science would be arguably the single most dangerous.

Now, check this out: If we're talking from a personal, introspective, self motivational point of view, then sure. Everyone CAN be a musician, a plumber, a lawyer and a scientist, so therefore why not just think positively and inclusively... yada yada.... I'm in favor of that.

But in public discourse, and when people want to legislate things based on "science" and what "scientists" say, there should be a system to establish WHAT is science and WHO says what such science is, etc. Thank goodness there is. And the point sweet Beth, is that if that system were to come into question AS IT NOW HAS then those of us who know the difference between science and religion MUST step forward.

The quack with a fundamentalist bend who parades himself as a scientist, and who claims that studies say millions of women die each year from abortions (whatever his name is) is not a scientist at all. But that "credential" makes him have certain credibility with people who are looking for a secular argument to support their religious agenda. That's just one random example...

WE JUST DON'T NEED THAT IN OUR LIVES!!!

C'mon Lovely Beth, don't let positive thinking get in the way of rational thinking.

It is crucial that we scrutinize those who claim to have "scientific proof".

Fordama makes a reference to "scientific experts". We need to make clear distinctions about who's an authority on what. Scientists and scientific "experts" are not the same thing by a long shot. I'd go so far as to say that "scientific experts" is a term that was created for the media and not in any way a profession or something you can learn at a university or anywhere other than in broadcasting.

Obviously Fordama, a practicing scientist with a legitimate science degree would indeed be an expert in their field. But I bet you know what I'm talking about...

Scientists work on testing hypotheses and analyzing data. Experts work on convincing people.

[Mongrel]

Originally posted by Beth
I agree with the teacher who says that "anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it is too". I'll grant you they aren't professional scientists, which is perhaps your complaint. I'm not a professional cook, but I can still legimately call myself a cook. I do, after all, prepare meals for others on a regular basis. Likewise, I think those teachers can call themselves scientists if they choose.

I'm not sure I understand your beef with it. I seriously doubt they are writing down "scientist" on job applications rather than "science teacher". And I don't think the general public would be any more confused by their claims to be scientists than by my claim to be a cook.

Beth

Having had some background in professional kitchens calling yourself a cook, to me, would infer that a) You enjoy cooking as a hobby and\or b) You work in a small commercial place that serves "home food" (not that there's anything wong with that :)). Chef is generally used to denote 'Cooks for a living', 'Has a high standard of culinary skills' and to a lesser degree 'Is able to manage a Kitchen or section competently'.

In my opinion whilst "anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it..." contains a facet of what makes a scientist, there's a whole lot more to it than that. Saying differently is either an attempt to muddy the water, similar to the Anti-Evo crowd decrying it for being "Only a theory" or very bad usage of English - which is never a good thing :(

[Beth]

The original post was in regard to a science teacher referring to him/herself as a scientist during the course of an internet discussion. Another science teacher concurred and said that students were as well. This is a legimate use of the word scientist. Consider the first definition in the link Fordama provided "A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation." That fits science teachers. Now consider the second definition: "a person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject". That fits students as well as teachers.

Now, context is important. Czarzy posted So, when a list such as "400 Scientists Who Oppose Evolution" at the Discovery Institute creationist (ID) site is posted, you are confident that the general public realizes that the list comprises anyone who wonders about the natural world and tries to discover what is known, instead of thinking that it is a list of people whose livelihood depends on their being as objective as possible, basing their inferences on the presumption that physical phenomena are due to physically mechanisms, subject to rigourous peer review, etc, (ie, the more precise term of scientist)?

In that context, I would presume they mean professionals with degrees. But in the context of an internet discussion, I think it's perfectly reasonable and legit for science teachers to claim the title of scientist, just as it would be legit for a music teacher to claim to be a musician or an art teacher to claim to be an artist.

gg500 said But in public discourse, and when people want to legislate things based on "science" and what "scientists" say, there should be a system to establish WHAT is science and WHO says what such science is, etc.

Yes, I agree with you regarding legislation. Public discourse covers a lot of ground, and I think a looser definition is appropriate for internet discussions.

The quack with a fundamentalist bend who parades himself as a scientist, and who claims that studies say millions of women die each year from abortions (whatever his name is) is not a scientist at all. But that "credential" makes him have certain credibility with people who are looking for a secular argument to support their religious agenda. That's just one random example...It is crucial that we scrutinize those who claim to have "scientific proof".

I have to disagree here. IMO it's far more important to scrutinize the "scientific proof" than the credentials of the scientist. In the ID hearings in Kansas a few months ago, many well-credentialed professional scientists gave testimony for supporting ID. Should we accept their opinions just because they are scientists? Or should we examine the science and accept or reject it based on it's inherent worth?

That's why I think it's important to encourage people to think of themselves as scientists, just as they might think of themselves as musicians or cooks. They don't have to be professional level scientists to be able to conduct experiments or give critical thought to things that affect their own lives.

Beth

[Czarzy]

Your position seems to be that a science teacher who claims to other science teachers on an internet forum that s/he is a scientist …

…would NOT imply to other people that s/he is a scientist: to people (like students) who do not have a clear idea of the difference between the job specifications of a scientist versus those of a science educator.

My position is that a person who is a science educator and who claims to be a scientist among fellow science educators …

… may indeed leave that impression on those people, such as students, who are not as savvy as to what a scientist is and on what a scientist‘s professional reputation is based, and that this has serious consequences in the public perception of scientists’ credibility, if the science educator expresses opinions in regards to science that are definitely not those of the majority of real scientists.

Today’s students are tomorrow’s voters. If they think that “Mr. F, my science teacher, was a scientist, and he was a creationist, then, gosh, scientists disagree about whether evolution or creationism is the best scientific answer to explaining the diversity of living things.�, then one can see the importance of not proclaiming oneself a scientist unless one is a scientist by profession, under the intense scrutiny that is part of the profession.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Czarzy
Your position seems to be that a science teacher who claims to other science teachers on an internet forum that s/he is a scientist …

…would NOT imply to other people that s/he is a scientist: to people (like students) who do not have a clear idea of the difference between the job specifications of a scientist versus those of a science educator.

No, I think that science teachers fit one definition of scientist. I don't think that people will be any more confused about which definition they are using than they would be by an art teacher who claimed to be an artist. They are scientists, just an art teacher is an artist even if they never had a single commercial sale. I expect a high school science teacher to be about as talented a scientist as I expect a high school art teacher to be as an artist.

[chulbert]

There are three separate issues here. First, can you be a non-professional scientist? Second, does a mere "curiosity about the natural world" make you a scientist? Third, does being a science teacher make you a scientist?

1) Yes. Science is a process, a methodology and a way of thinking and analyzing the world, and any practitioner of science can reasonably be called a scientist.

2) No. While scientists certainly possess "curiosity about the natural world", the thing that makes you a scientist is how you "[try] to find out about it." If you use the scientific method, you're a scientist. If you don't, you're not.

3) No, but it's not clear to me from the original post that the teacher claimed to be a scientist because she's a science teacher. Could she not simply mean that she considers herself both a scientist AND a science educator?

In the United States we expect a person calling themselves a physician to have a degree from an accredited medical college, and at the very least to have completed specific training to be able to treat patients. Some fields require practitioners to be licensed and some do not. I don't see this as a substantial point. Is a philosopher not a philosopher unless they have a degree in philosophy?

We cannot afford (in the name of progress, science and common sense) calling just anyone who is curious about science a scientist. Perhaps the problem is on the other end? Perhaps we shouldn't refer to researchers and experts as mere scientists when we in fact mean more?

[Uncertainty]

I don't post much if at all but this is an issue that recently came up at school. I'm just about done with a physics degree and this issue actually came up in discussion with some of our professors.

Even after we graduate we won't be considered physicists by the general community unless we are doing actual research or working as a professional in the area of physics. So being a physicist means actual work in the field is being done. I would imagine the same sort of thing is understood by biologists, zoologists, chemists and so on.

The issue over being a scientist is different. Anyone who preforms their own experements or follows the scientific method would be considered a scientist, but the specialized sciences have thier own title.

Thats just what I understood the opinion of my professors to be. I got the idea that they wouldn't have a problem with anyone who actually practices science calling them a scientist, though physicist is out of bounds.

[ingoa]

"Real scientists" don't call themselves "scientists". Just for fun I got a professional newspaper (CERN Courier) from my basket and had a look in the recruitment section:

Offers were for:
- Junior Professorship (Tenure Track)
- Scientific Assistant (my position is called the same)
- Postdoctoral Research Positions (a dozen or so)
- Experimental Physicist
- Professor for Particle Accelerator Physics
- Director (2)
- Research Associate
- Lecturer

but no scientist. Scientist is not a profession. Physicist is (or can be).

If somebody calls himself a "scientist" there is a high likelyhood that he isn't. I call myself a physicist. But I have to be drunk to do that. Normally I call myself particle pysicists or nuclear physicist. What do I know about solid state matter.... :rolleyes: Probably more than 99% of mankind, but surely not enough to be a true expert.

The notion of a scientist is only used by the media and not so educated. It implies a broadness of knowledge that is not possible anymore.

BTW.: Dick Feynman called himself a teacher with strong curiosity.

[Questioninggeller]

Scientists are people who contribute to the advancement of the subject through theories and tests. Teachers don't have that contribution and are not scientists, they teach kids theories. Usually a scientist has a graduate degree.

Take a historian for example. A high school history teacher teaches information that historians have written about. That teacher (who has a BA and a credential) doesn't contribute anything new, but merely passes on information that has been debated and written about by historians. To be a historian or scientist means you have at least an MA because a MA means you did research and studied a subject to be awarded that degree. In that respect the person shared personal theories and research to the professional academic world.

As for the original post, its very troublesome that someone with a Bachelors thinks they have enough of an education to put themselves at the rank of a PhD. Last thing we need is more uneducated people (like Kent Hovind) calling themselves an expert arguing that creationism is fact.

[Jeff Corey]

A minimum requirement to be called a scientist might be an advanced (M.S or Ph.D.) degree in a recognized science such as biology and a publication in a real scientific journal.
That would give Emily Rosa only half the qualifications, so far. But how old is she now? 12?

[Bob Klase]

Another teacher wrote in and said not only that was she a scientist but her students are, too, and that anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it is, too.

First problem is, where did that definition of 'scientist' come from? I looked at several dictionaries and found none that defined a scientist as just someone with a curiosity about the natural world. Most of the definitions I read were along the lines of this one: "A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science."

So, having a natural curiosity about the natural world makes a scientist the same way that being curious about food makes you a gormet chef. Or being curious about how airplanes fly makes you a pilot.

If we just make up whatever definition we want then anyone can be anything.

a person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject". That fits students

Not necessarily.

[Chicken Pot Pie]

As it happens Beth, I am a proffesional musician, and I also teach music part time. In this business, we have a (mean) saying: Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach. You've heard that I'm sure. I can't speak for the science community, but I bet you there's some of that in their field as well.

From a musical stand point, the issue is that the folks who spend their lives showing the fundamentals of instruments and music to students 8 hours a day, don't have the time or the inclination to practice their own skills as performers, as much as those who make a living playing music.

But interestingly, the term musician isn't ever associated with any kind of education. There are marvelous self taught musicians, and there are academics with a dismal concept of performance.

And, what's funny is that if you're teaching music, more often than not you'll have to have some kind of music degree or a music education degree, when that is simply NEVER required of a performer.

The fact is, my best teachers were always talented as educators, but not as performers. The teachers whom I respected as performers lacked a thorough didactical knowledge which made them less than great teachers.

See, to me educators are invaluable. Let's give them their due:

Don't call them musicians, accountants, engineers or scientists. Lets just call them TEACHERS. Their profession deserves much more respect than it gets.


I realize this discussion is about scientists, but as a musician and soon to be substitute teacher, I have seen more than one side of music educators. My Junior and High School music teachers had their hands full with classes and private lessons, which many schools don't even offer to beginners. We we fortunate to have two lessons a week for our first three years. They also coordinated the pit orchestra for every year's musical (Guys and Dolls, Oklahoma, and Sweet Charity in my years). We had practices after school, weekend trips and performances, and still the directors had time for our private lessons. That gave us the knowledge that discipline lead to better playing.

In college, my Theory professor was a composer and gave recitals, held workshops, and was very respected in the music circles. Yes, an educator, but still a professional.

Using their examples, though I'm only going to be a sub, I hope to incorporate many of their teaching styles. They both were wonderful musicians and educators.

[Roboramma]

Here's a question, what was the person trying to say by saying "I'm a scientist"?
Why not say, "I'm a science teacher"?
Perhaps some expert knowledge or understanding of the issues was being suggested by the statement?
In that case, no, the implied meaning is not correct.

In what case would the statement that someone without any advanced training in science is a scientist be informative?

[egslim]

I insist that indeed, only the people with PhD's have a right to call themselves full fledged scientists.
There are people who've studied physics, yet believe in creationism. Are they scientists?
In my opinion, a scientist is anyone who seeks to advance his knowledge through use of the scientific method. That obviously excludes quacks. Note also that someone can be a scientist in one field and not in another.
It's not about how much you know of a field, it's about accepting you could be wrong - which is what the scientific method is all about..

During WWII a group of British scientists used the scientific method to improve tactics, for example to find the most effective setting for depthcharges. Definately not a PhD subject, but it was science and they used it quite succesfully.

[eri]

There are many people out there who deserve to be called scientists, and not just the ones with PhDs. They have done research (often original) and have been published in peer-reviewed journals. They are called grad students (and talented and motivated undergrads). As one of them myself, I call myself a scientist. I have done research, been published, and been hired on the basis of my research. I haven't finished that PhD yet, but I will someday.

On another note, I am also a musician. Although I have studied for many years and am being paid to play on a regular basis, and do consider myself a musician, I don't consider myself a PROFESSIONAL musician, which I define as someone who went to school for it (or can make a living doing it). Perhaps the same should apply to science? I would call myself a professional scientist (my main source of income is my research position) and an amatuar musician (supplimental income).

How does that work? Amatuar scientist vs. professional? We already have quite a few amatuar astronomers out there, why not amatuar biologists?

[athon]

I'm a science teacher. And I used to be a scientist; a laboratory scientist who applied science to pathology diagnostics. My official job title was 'medical scientist'. Said so on my badge :D.

But I never advanced the field of science at all. I didn't work in research; I only applied it and used scientific thinking to make diagnostic decisions.

So the term 'scientist' is not a clear definition. 'One who applies scientific methodology' is the best I can come up with.

That said, I think in teaching it is a more of a poetic application. I admit I have on occasion motivated the kids by saying 'in my science class, you are all scientists'...much like a music teacher might say 'in my class, you are all musicians'. I say it to get the kids to think that they should behave like scientists in my classes. I don't think any kid really thinks 'Hey, I'm a real scientist'.

Some people have some good points here, but I think it's a little much to think it is undoing the glue of society if kids start to think of themselves as scientists because a teacher calls them that. As for calling oneself 'scientist', if it is used in a capacity that could cause confusion of profession, it could cause problems. I'm not a scientist anymore, in an occupation sense, but I still feel I have the skills I possessed.

Athon