The Refuge of the Toads

[ERV]

Dude she was bitching about being addressed as 'SciBabe' instead of 'scientist', and suggested sexism was the reason for that.

No problem with SciBabe. She do wat she do. But she is SciBabe, not a scientist.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Let's talk about tanks again. This is the best five and a half minute war film evar!!!!

[youtube]8OHAvMgQHcc[/youtube]

Of course! Build the tanks out of Lego! Cheap construction costs, can be put together by 5 year olds..... It all makes sense.

Tinkertoys were over-engineered.

[blitzem]

Brother Nathanael goes full Yemmi- Who'd a thunk unelectable rhymed with homosexual?
[youtube]0-3WkuPu_co[/youtube]

Unusually serious for Brother Nate.

Too bad he's gone full conspiratard. I used to enjoy watching his stuff, even if it crossed the line into hate-mongering.

[blitzem]

Hmm. I should perhaps clarify that it was B. Nathaniels' anti-Semitism that I was enjoying, but he rants against big business. Just for clarity. :mrgreen:

[welch]

Dude she was bitching about being addressed as 'SciBabe' instead of 'scientist', and suggested sexism was the reason for that.

No problem with SciBabe. She do wat she do. But she is SciBabe, not a scientist.

Y'all have a really funny way of not having a problem with what she does.

But let me get this straight, because it is often confusing to me:

Who can be a scientist: Only people with Ph.Ds who publish in approved journals

Who cannot ever be a scientist: everyone else

that's the basic point here?

Because if so, what do you call people who do scientific work every day but don't publish? People who do research kinds of stuff, but never get their name on a "real" paper? Should they just bung it all in and go dig ditches?

[Service Dog]

Dude she was bitching about being addressed as 'SciBabe' instead of 'scientist', and suggested sexism was the reason for that.

No problem with SciBabe. She do wat she do. But she is SciBabe, not a scientist.

[youtube]Elpbs6kb8Ys[/youtube]

[comhcinc]

Hey before the chairs start flying just wanted to let everyone know that thanks to you guys we are covered for the month. I was even able to buy a cherry Dr. Pepper while out today.

[Brive1987]

Therefore the answer to 'what is a scientist' could simply be that you think like one by applying the scientific method. Not only that, you also work within a scientific community, where your results and ideas are tested against the results and ideas of others working in the same field.

http://www.cdnsciencepub.com/blog/what- ... ntist.aspx


I think Scibabe fails that last important hurdle.

[Brive1987]

http://i.imgur.com/0vQiWEH.jpg

http://evol-eco.blogspot.com.au/2014/10 ... tists.html

[Brive1987]

Which incidentally is why PZ is a teacher not a scientist.

[KiwiInOz]

I'm a felon and thus not allowed in Canada.

I guess if will have to be help in Australia then.

I can't afford drop bear insurance.

Come to Queensland. Our snakes keep the drop bears under control.

[welch]

Therefore the answer to 'what is a scientist' could simply be that you think like one by applying the scientific method. Not only that, you also work within a scientific community, where your results and ideas are tested against the results and ideas of others working in the same field.

http://www.cdnsciencepub.com/blog/what- ... ntist.aspx


I think Scibabe fails that last important hurdle.

So then would it be okay if she pulled a Nye and called herself "Yvette the Science Lady"? Because no one has a problem with an engineer without a post-grad degree who's evidently never had a real publication and doesn't even have a science degree calling himself "the science guy" and he fails the same test she does.

If it's wrong for her to incorrectly co-opt "science" then it's wrong for him.

[Old_ones]

Dude she was bitching about being addressed as 'SciBabe' instead of 'scientist', and suggested sexism was the reason for that.

No problem with SciBabe. She do wat she do. But she is SciBabe, not a scientist.

Y'all have a really funny way of not having a problem with what she does.

But let me get this straight, because it is often confusing to me:

Who can be a scientist: Only people with Ph.Ds who publish in approved journals

Who cannot ever be a scientist: everyone else

that's the basic point here?

Because if so, what do you call people who do scientific work every day but don't publish? People who do research kinds of stuff, but never get their name on a "real" paper? Should they just bung it all in and go dig ditches?

Judging from the crap that I hear about PZ Myers not being a "real scientist", I'm guessing some of the people on this board will find that definition too inclusive.

I agree with your point, though. I'm willing to extend the designation to people who have a background in science, and are doing something to advance the cause of science in some way or another. No need to be pretentious and elitist about it. That shit pisses people off, and for good reason.

[Brive1987]

You have moved from scientist to science. I can claim to be the "history-guy" but the title "historian" comes with earned baggage. Dan Carlin for instance is very careful to continuously stress his amateur status.

[Billie from Ockham]

Research that is not published (or, at least, submitted) might as well not have been done. Period.

You can fail to have your name appear on the paper ... most of my RAs don't get authorship ... but if the project on which you are working will never be seen outside the lab, then it's a waste of time and money.

The idea that you need a PhD to get published is nonsense. My first-year project was published, for example. The idea that you need continuous funding is too strong and gives funding agencies too much control. It's a good sign that you're funded, but nowhere near necessary.

[Brive1987]

Judging from the crap that I hear about PZ Myers not being a "real scientist", I'm guessing some of the people on this board will find that definition too inclusive.

I agree with your point, though. I'm willing to extend the designation to people who have a background in science, and are doing something to advance the cause of science in some way or another. No need to be pretentious and elitist about it. That shit pisses people off, and for good reason.

Thanks for the PhD info earlier. Re this descent into pomo - shall I pass on the good news to Bob and Evan that the SGU has a couple new scientists on board? I think Bob has a computer science background. Obviously Cara with her MA and dulcet tone qualified sometime ago.

;)

[welch]

Therefore the answer to 'what is a scientist' could simply be that you think like one by applying the scientific method. Not only that, you also work within a scientific community, where your results and ideas are tested against the results and ideas of others working in the same field.

http://www.cdnsciencepub.com/blog/what- ... ntist.aspx


I think Scibabe fails that last important hurdle.

You may want to stop quoting Boon so much. Clearly she has no clue as to what a "real" scientist is. I mean, at no point in that paragraph does she talk about a Ph.D.

Just look at this drivel from the same post:

A scientist takes a rigorous, critical approach that questions assumptions and examines evidence based on observation/experimentation, then evaluates those results in the context of other work in that field. This approach doesn't require that you have a PhD, or even a science degree - as you say, everyone can apply science in their life.

What kind of idiot do you have to be to think THAT is all there is to being a scientist. And just look at this from a page she links to in her post:

Biologist Alex Bond wrote a response to this post over on his own blog, arguing that it limits the description of scientist to only a subset of academic scientists. What about research technicians, he asked, who contribute to research but don't necessarily publish? What about scientists at NGOs or in industry, who don’t require the same funding as academic scientists? What about scientists who publish, but aren’t involved in student training? What about scientists who publish reports but not peer reviewed literature?

I mean, reading Bond's post (https://labandfield.wordpress.com/2015/ ... cientists/), it's clear he has no idea what a scientist is. I mean, just look at him trying to distinguish between an "Academic Scientist" and some other kind of nonsensical scientist. Of course, his utter lack of qualifications are made clear by this line:

I work for an environmental NGO. I am a researcher. I am a scientist. I am not an academic.

Even aside from that, look at the drivel he spouts:

Taking the list of four supposed requirements to be graced with the moniker of “scientist”, I find fault with each of them. First, that a scientist must publish, and be asked to review peer-reviewed papers. For better or worse, this is the mechanism by which we, as a scientific community, have largely chosen to assess merit and progress. Again, whether this broken system is the best/most appropriate/only way to do so is a topic for another day. But it excludes the foot-soldiers on the ground doing a lot of the actual work – technicians and research assistants. “But!” I hear some cry, “They are simply following the instructions of a scientist!” Well done on demoting these people to the role of mindless automatons. Suggesting that they have no independent thought, no ability to find solutions to problems, or to pose unique and important questions is disingenuous, and placing them in a supposedly lower class of “technician” or “field assistant” absent of the word scientist reinforces the strongly hierarchical norms of our profession. These people are scientists.

How can you possibly take anyone talking stupid like that seriously. What kind of twat would think anything outside of academic requirements could make anyone a scientist.

clearly, both of those posts are purest idiocy.

[free thoughtpolice]

Scientists conduct research and engage in peer review?
Engineers and technologists have studied science and practice applied science?
Just because one has studied science or even teach it doesn't make you a scientist, at least if you are going by the strict definition of scientist.

[Ericb]

Come to Queensland. Our snakes keep the drop bears under control.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/b3ab ... ?width=650

[Brive1987]

I saw the Boon article as an overview of different ideas with some interesting links.

But I quoted the articles conclusion and will do so again:

Therefore the answer to 'what is a scientist' could simply be that you think like one by applying the scientific method. Not only that, you also work within a scientific community, where your results and ideas are tested against the results and ideas of others working in the same field.

It is implicit that a PhD is generally required to gain traction within the "scientific community". Though I guess it may be possible to somehow avoid that cred and still get into a position where you are taken seriously. :think:

The table I posted further defines what "working within the community" generally entails. You know. For the hyperskeptics.

[welch]

Dude she was bitching about being addressed as 'SciBabe' instead of 'scientist', and suggested sexism was the reason for that.

No problem with SciBabe. She do wat she do. But she is SciBabe, not a scientist.

Y'all have a really funny way of not having a problem with what she does.

But let me get this straight, because it is often confusing to me:

Who can be a scientist: Only people with Ph.Ds who publish in approved journals

Who cannot ever be a scientist: everyone else

that's the basic point here?

Because if so, what do you call people who do scientific work every day but don't publish? People who do research kinds of stuff, but never get their name on a "real" paper? Should they just bung it all in and go dig ditches?

Judging from the crap that I hear about PZ Myers not being a "real scientist", I'm guessing some of the people on this board will find that definition too inclusive.

I agree with your point, though. I'm willing to extend the designation to people who have a background in science, and are doing something to advance the cause of science in some way or another. No need to be pretentious and elitist about it. That shit pisses people off, and for good reason.

it also makes them not want to have any interest in the sciences. Why should they? Unless they meet a narrow range of definitions, they can't possibly do anything worthwhile. There's no point in even trying.

That's the message that gets sent by this, and it's horrible. People bitch about a lack of scientific knowledge among the general populace, but then go full elitist the first time anyone without the proper creds dares come close to the sacred term of "scientist". (By the way, the "real" scientists better do something about all those CompSci doctorates. )

I think XKCD is full of shit on a regular basis, but the point in this one was quite good:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png

Yeah, Yvette said something fucking stupid on Twitter. So does Dawkins, and with regularity. If I'm going to forgive him (or Neil Tyson's blatant misunderstanding of how modern aircraft, much less helicopters, function), then I'll forgive her. As long as she doesn't lose her fucking mind, whatever.

[ERV]

Dude she was bitching about being addressed as 'SciBabe' instead of 'scientist', and suggested sexism was the reason for that.

No problem with SciBabe. She do wat she do. But she is SciBabe, not a scientist.

Y'all have a really funny way of not having a problem with what she does.

But let me get this straight, because it is often confusing to me:

Who can be a scientist: Only people with Ph.Ds who publish in approved journals

Who cannot ever be a scientist: everyone else

that's the basic point here?

Because if so, what do you call people who do scientific work every day but don't publish? People who do research kinds of stuff, but never get their name on a "real" paper? Should they just bung it all in and go dig ditches?

Publishing is a huge part of it. A scientist needs to push Science forward. If no one knows what you are doing but you, and you get hit by a bus, what's the point? Someone who modifies protocols to optimize production of a chemical for their company so they can improve their profit margins, okay, but unless you publish that, 'industry secret', you're just contributing to your company, not Science. And I love techs. A good tech is worth their weight in gold. A good tech will advance beyond simply executing the work they are told to do (not A Scientist, any more than me mindlessly repeating Spanish phrases means I'm fluent) to strategically thinking and designing experiments (Scientist) without a PhD. Current lab has a number of publications with techs as first authors, all with bachelors degrees.

I hope lots of people do science as a hobby. Personal experiments they never publish. But that doesn't mean they should start sniping when someone refers to them by their well-known major profession, not their hobbies.

Again, I played the cello for a very long time. Not well. But good enough to get a bit of a scholarship one year of college. Stopped because I wasn't good, cause I didn't want to put the time in. Quit, did something else after my freshman year. Imagine I get invited to some conference, and I get pissed off they don't acknowledge my status as a musician. Get pissed Yo-yo Ma is properly labeled a 'cellist', suggest sexism is why I'm not given 'musician' title. What the fuck? I was a 'musician' (I would argue I wasn't). I'm a researcher, now. SciBabe is into scicomm now. That's fine. Tantrums demanding titles is something kooks do because they 'need' the title to have legitimacy, and SciBabe doing it, and her 'reason' for doing it, is a major red flag to me. No problem with her doing wat she do, but I'm going to keep an eye on her.

[welch]

I saw the Boon article as an overview of different ideas with some interesting links.

But I quoted the articles conclusion and will do so again:

Therefore the answer to 'what is a scientist' could simply be that you think like one by applying the scientific method. Not only that, you also work within a scientific community, where your results and ideas are tested against the results and ideas of others working in the same field.

It is implicit that a PhD is generally required to gain traction within the "scientific community". Though I guess it may be possible to somehow avoid that cred and still get into a position where you are taken seriously. :think:

The table I posted further defines what "working within the community" generally entails. You know. For the hyperskeptics.

Funny how you quoted that table, and yet ignored the larger point of her article and the one she linked to. But hey, you found your pull quote, and that's what's important.

Man, if only those early scientists who didn't have proper degrees had known they were wasting their time.

[comhcinc]

You have moved from scientist to science. I can claim to be the "history-guy" but the title "historian" comes with earned baggage. Dan Carlin for instance is very careful to continuously stress his amateur status.

True but I think Carlin does that to deflect any (and there is almost zero) criticism. Much like Jon Stewart spent years reporting the news but would say he wasn't any time people brought it up.

[Steersman]

I saw the Boon article as an overview of different ideas with some interesting links.

But I quoted the articles conclusion and will do so again:

Therefore the answer to 'what is a scientist' could simply be that you think like one by applying the scientific method. Not only that, you also work within a scientific community, where your results and ideas are tested against the results and ideas of others working in the same field.

It is implicit that a PhD is generally required to gain traction within the "scientific community". Though I guess it may be possible to somehow avoid that cred and still get into a position where you are taken seriously. :think:

The table I posted further defines what "working within the community" generally entails. You know. For the hyperskeptics.

sci·en·tist (sī′ən-tĭst)
n. A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science.

"Was that a bird or a plane? No, it was Dictionary Man!" ....

Seems a pretty flexible term with a wide range of qualifying criteria.

[paddybrown]

[youtube]YxU0lCA_cQU[/youtube]

She only calls herself a 'boy', not a 'man'. I concur.

I think she wants to stay a child.

[welch]

Dude she was bitching about being addressed as 'SciBabe' instead of 'scientist', and suggested sexism was the reason for that.

No problem with SciBabe. She do wat she do. But she is SciBabe, not a scientist.

Y'all have a really funny way of not having a problem with what she does.

But let me get this straight, because it is often confusing to me:

Who can be a scientist: Only people with Ph.Ds who publish in approved journals

Who cannot ever be a scientist: everyone else

that's the basic point here?

Because if so, what do you call people who do scientific work every day but don't publish? People who do research kinds of stuff, but never get their name on a "real" paper? Should they just bung it all in and go dig ditches?

Publishing is a huge part of it. A scientist needs to push Science forward. If no one knows what you are doing but you, and you get hit by a bus, what's the point? Someone who modifies protocols to optimize production of a chemical for their company so they can improve their profit margins, okay, but unless you publish that, 'industry secret', you're just contributing to your company, not Science. And I love techs. A good tech is worth their weight in gold. A good tech will advance beyond simply executing the work they are told to do (not A Scientist, any more than me mindlessly repeating Spanish phrases means I'm fluent) to strategically thinking and designing experiments (Scientist) without a PhD. Current lab has a number of publications with techs as first authors, all with bachelors degrees.

I hope lots of people do science as a hobby. Personal experiments they never publish. But that doesn't mean they should start sniping when someone refers to them by their well-known major profession, not their hobbies.

Again, I played the cello for a very long time. Not well. But good enough to get a bit of a scholarship one year of college. Stopped because I wasn't good, cause I didn't want to put the time in. Quit, did something else after my freshman year. Imagine I get invited to some conference, and I get pissed off they don't acknowledge my status as a musician. Get pissed Yo-yo Ma is properly labeled a 'cellist', suggest sexism is why I'm not given 'musician' title. What the fuck? I was a 'musician' (I would argue I wasn't). I'm a researcher, now. SciBabe is into scicomm now. That's fine. Tantrums demanding titles is something kooks do because they 'need' the title to have legitimacy, and SciBabe doing it, and her 'reason' for doing it, is a major red flag to me. No problem with her doing wat she do, but I'm going to keep an eye on her.

Again, why is it okay for Nye to call himself a science guy. What's the difference between his abuse of the word and hers.

By the way, unless you're in the rarified classic genre, which is very twattish, if you can play an instrument, you're a musician. and the definition of "instrument" is rather generous.

[youtube]hnsQRpgYmaE[/youtube]

and then there's dave grohl:

“When I think about kids watching a TV show like American Idol or The Voice, then they think, ‘Oh, OK, that’s how you become a musician, you stand in line for eight fucking hours with 800 people at a convention center and… then you sing your heart out for someone and then they tell you it’s not fuckin’ good enough.’ Can you imagine?” he implores. “It’s destroying the next generation of musicians! Musicians should go to a yard sale and buy and old fucking drum set and get in their garage and just suck. And get their friends to come in and they’ll suck, too. And then they’ll fucking start playing and they’ll have the best time they’ve ever had in their lives and then all of a sudden they’ll become Nirvana. Because that’s exactly what happened with Nirvana. Just a bunch of guys that had some shitty old instruments and they got together and started playing some noisy-ass shit, and they became the biggest band in the world. That can happen again! You don’t need a fucking computer or the internet or The Voice or American Idol.”

Grohl overstates the nirvana bit just a TAD, but his point is dead on. If you're making music by beating a stick against a rock, you're a fucking musician. You may not be a professional musician, but you're a musician.

It's probably a good thing that Astrophysics is so young. Because there's a lot of shit been discovered by "non-scientists" and luckily, the field is too young to ignore them due to shit like degree and lack of papers published.

[comhcinc]

[youtube]M89l7pX5gzc[/youtube]

I mean some one had to post it.

[free thoughtpolice]

Surly Amy is a scientist. She is well versed int fields of lady science and even gets her artwork peer reviewed.
:drool:

[paddybrown]

There's a been an amazing story this year in our football Premier League, Leicester City, an unfashionable team with a small budget have upset the odds by winning the League title tonight. In these days of truly huge amounts of money involved in the game it was thought impossible for any team outside of the recent elite of Manchester United and City, Chelsea, Arsenal and possibly Liverpool to mount a credible challenge for the title. Now Leicester have refuted that theory and given hope to all other clubs, indeed Spurs will finish second, and the club I support, West Ham United are also having a great season and could finish in fifth place. I had become quite jaded with the game in England in recent years but this season has really been thrilling. The Leicester triumph is truly inspiring I think, and in a media world that is obsessed with blanket coverage of sport and the personalities involved, here is a story worth telling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35988673

This has been a wonderfully weird Premiership season. Not only have Leicester won the title, but last year's champions, Cheslea, despite having all the money in the world and being packed with expensive international star players, have imploded spectacularly. It's thrown all the received wisdom into question. For the last decade or so, everybody's been trying to emulate Barcelona and play a quick passing, possession-based game - Leicester have ignored that and played direct and on the counter, and usually have a minority of possession.

I'm a Nottingham Forest fan, and while we languish in the second tier it's been nice to see Wes Morgan, our former big galoot of a centre-half, go on and captain a Premiership-winning side. Now let's see if they can emulate Forest under Brian Clough and win the European Cup.

[Old_ones]

Judging from the crap that I hear about PZ Myers not being a "real scientist", I'm guessing some of the people on this board will find that definition too inclusive.

I agree with your point, though. I'm willing to extend the designation to people who have a background in science, and are doing something to advance the cause of science in some way or another. No need to be pretentious and elitist about it. That shit pisses people off, and for good reason.

Thanks for the PhD info earlier. Re this descent into pomo - shall I pass on the good news to Bob and Evan that the SGU has a couple new scientists on board? I think Bob has a computer science background. Obviously Cara with her MA and dulcet tone qualified sometime ago.

;)

On the contrary, why settle on using the term only for academic PIs who regularly publish in peer reviewed journals? I've read hundreds peer reviewed articles, and I can tell you that some of them are deeply flawed, and published in journals with very lax review standards. Moreover, there are a lot of "scientists" (scoff) who never make a major, groundbreaking contribution to their field. In my whole department, there was only one "scientist" who managed to get into the national academy of science. People on the internet pretending to be scientists are even worse; just look at that Thunderf00t guy for example. That guy publishes, but what high profile award has he ever won? He claims to be a chemist, but I've never heard of the "Thunderf00t reaction". What kind of chemist is he without his own named reaction?

;)

To me, being a scientist is about using the scientific method, and training others to do so. There are a variety of ways to do that, and not all of them necessitate being Dan Nocera, and having a golden publication record and a plausible Nobel prospect. We already have several words for people who head research groups in academia: "professor" or "principle investigator", for instance. I don't think its wrong to refer to "industry scientists" who work on trade secrets they'll never publish, or to include teachers like PZ Myers in the "scientist" club. Its kind of ironic to me that I have to argue this, because academia is one of the places that "scientist" is used least often as a job title. Its common in industry, for people who effectively engineer products rather than working on basic research, and its also common for government workers who may or may not be doing work that will enter the public domain. Academic researchers tend to be "professors", "fellows", "students", "research associates", or "technicians".

So call Cara Santa Maria (that's the Cara you meant, right?) a scientist if you want. Although, she has an MA? In what exactly? If it turns out to be sociology then the gloves are coming off...

[Brive1987]

I saw the Boon article as an overview of different ideas with some interesting links.

But I quoted the articles conclusion and will do so again:

Therefore the answer to 'what is a scientist' could simply be that you think like one by applying the scientific method. Not only that, you also work within a scientific community, where your results and ideas are tested against the results and ideas of others working in the same field.

It is implicit that a PhD is generally required to gain traction within the "scientific community". Though I guess it may be possible to somehow avoid that cred and still get into a position where you are taken seriously. :think:

The table I posted further defines what "working within the community" generally entails. You know. For the hyperskeptics.

Funny how you quoted that table, and yet ignored the larger point of her article and the one she linked to. But hey, you found your pull quote, and that's what's important.

Man, if only those early scientists who didn't have proper degrees had known they were wasting their time.

Actually I picked that article because it was nuanced and did pose the question "should we limit scientists to their stereotype?"

I found it telling that even a soft approach still resulted in a conclusion that demanded structured advancement of knowledge in a peer environment. She didn't have the spoons to define what that meant but the table fits with my opinion. You seem to have a problem with professional qualifications and corresponding titles. Does this extent to medical doctors? Is a health enthusiast an MD? No? Oh the humanity.

[Tigzy]

It is implicit that a PhD is generally required to gain traction within the "scientific community". Though I guess it may be possible to somehow avoid that cred and still get into a position where you are taken seriously. :think:

It's certainly possible in astronomy, where contributions from amateurs are sought after and valued - though obviously after having passed muster with the pros, of course. Patrick Moore, for example, never gained a professional science qualification in his life, yet was recognised as a major authority when it came to the Moon - to the extent that his lunar maps were consulted by NASA in their preparations for Apollo 11.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

[youtube]YxU0lCA_cQU[/youtube]

She only calls herself a 'boy', not a 'man'. I concur.

I think she wants to stay a child.

I think she wants a cape and a moose side-kick.

[HunnyBunny]

I think Steers has the answer for all this Scientist / Not Scientist quibbling. If a woman is not a woman when she stops producing ova, it follows that a Scientist is not a scientist when s/h/it stops producing science. Matt Cavanaugh once said Steers was right, so it must be so.

[ERV]

Y'all have a really funny way of not having a problem with what she does.

But let me get this straight, because it is often confusing to me:

Who can be a scientist: Only people with Ph.Ds who publish in approved journals

Who cannot ever be a scientist: everyone else

that's the basic point here?

Because if so, what do you call people who do scientific work every day but don't publish? People who do research kinds of stuff, but never get their name on a "real" paper? Should they just bung it all in and go dig ditches?

Publishing is a huge part of it. A scientist needs to push Science forward. If no one knows what you are doing but you, and you get hit by a bus, what's the point? Someone who modifies protocols to optimize production of a chemical for their company so they can improve their profit margins, okay, but unless you publish that, 'industry secret', you're just contributing to your company, not Science. And I love techs. A good tech is worth their weight in gold. A good tech will advance beyond simply executing the work they are told to do (not A Scientist, any more than me mindlessly repeating Spanish phrases means I'm fluent) to strategically thinking and designing experiments (Scientist) without a PhD. Current lab has a number of publications with techs as first authors, all with bachelors degrees.

I hope lots of people do science as a hobby. Personal experiments they never publish. But that doesn't mean they should start sniping when someone refers to them by their well-known major profession, not their hobbies.

Again, I played the cello for a very long time. Not well. But good enough to get a bit of a scholarship one year of college. Stopped because I wasn't good, cause I didn't want to put the time in. Quit, did something else after my freshman year. Imagine I get invited to some conference, and I get pissed off they don't acknowledge my status as a musician. Get pissed Yo-yo Ma is properly labeled a 'cellist', suggest sexism is why I'm not given 'musician' title. What the fuck? I was a 'musician' (I would argue I wasn't). I'm a researcher, now. SciBabe is into scicomm now. That's fine. Tantrums demanding titles is something kooks do because they 'need' the title to have legitimacy, and SciBabe doing it, and her 'reason' for doing it, is a major red flag to me. No problem with her doing wat she do, but I'm going to keep an eye on her.

Again, why is it okay for Nye to call himself a science guy. What's the difference between his abuse of the word and hers.

By the way, unless you're in the rarified classic genre, which is very twattish, if you can play an instrument, you're a musician. and the definition of "instrument" is rather generous.

[youtube]hnsQRpgYmaE[/youtube]

and then there's dave grohl:

“When I think about kids watching a TV show like American Idol or The Voice, then they think, ‘Oh, OK, that’s how you become a musician, you stand in line for eight fucking hours with 800 people at a convention center and… then you sing your heart out for someone and then they tell you it’s not fuckin’ good enough.’ Can you imagine?” he implores. “It’s destroying the next generation of musicians! Musicians should go to a yard sale and buy and old fucking drum set and get in their garage and just suck. And get their friends to come in and they’ll suck, too. And then they’ll fucking start playing and they’ll have the best time they’ve ever had in their lives and then all of a sudden they’ll become Nirvana. Because that’s exactly what happened with Nirvana. Just a bunch of guys that had some shitty old instruments and they got together and started playing some noisy-ass shit, and they became the biggest band in the world. That can happen again! You don’t need a fucking computer or the internet or The Voice or American Idol.”

Grohl overstates the nirvana bit just a TAD, but his point is dead on. If you're making music by beating a stick against a rock, you're a fucking musician. You may not be a professional musician, but you're a musician.

It's probably a good thing that Astrophysics is so young. Because there's a lot of shit been discovered by "non-scientists" and luckily, the field is too young to ignore them due to shit like degree and lack of papers published.

I don't think Nye is a scientist either. Scientist and 'science guy' are not equatable terms to me.

I also wasn't a musician. I played the notes on the page as directed. I didn't love it. Zero passion. Didn't put in a fraction of the work the kids who loved it did. Just wanted to be 'well rounded' on college aps. Zero issues dropping the cello and never picking if up again. It is an insult to compare me as a 'musician', to Phil as a Musician.

There is a difference between hobbies/interests, even doing those hobbies well, and those same hobbies as a profession.

I mean why *cant* there be Scientists? If it's something anyone can do, then what separates Jenny McCarthy from Francis Collins?

[Brive1987]

I guess there are artists and artists.

I'd imagine there are unwritten 'rules' in the community about what constitutes the latter (exhibits, reviews etc) - certainly about when it is appropriate to have that as a public moniker at a related convention.

That said, my mum was a quite the Monet when the mood took her.

[welch]

I saw the Boon article as an overview of different ideas with some interesting links.

<quote removed due to software limitations>

It is implicit that a PhD is generally required to gain traction within the "scientific community". Though I guess it may be possible to somehow avoid that cred and still get into a position where you are taken seriously. :think:

The table I posted further defines what "working within the community" generally entails. You know. For the hyperskeptics.

Funny how you quoted that table, and yet ignored the larger point of her article and the one she linked to. But hey, you found your pull quote, and that's what's important.

Man, if only those early scientists who didn't have proper degrees had known they were wasting their time.

Actually I picked that article because it was nuanced and did pose the question "should we limit scientists to their stereotype?"

I found it telling that even a soft approach still resulted in a conclusion that demanded structured advancement of knowledge in a peer environment. She didn't have the spoons to define what that meant but the table fits with my opinion. You seem to have a problem with professional qualifications and corresponding titles. Does this extent to medical doctors? Is a health enthusiast an MD? No? Oh the humanity.

Nice try, but you're comparing something that requires specific training and government/private certification (MD) with something that really doesn't (generic "scientist"). You can know all the law you want, but if you want to be a "Lawyer", there are certain governmental requirements you have to meet. Doesn't make you any more or less knowledgeable, but you can't be a "Lawyer" without meeting those specific requirements.

Same thing with many kinds of engineers, a source of great resentment towards software engineers who have no such requirement. And I imagine the people who drive trains think the pointdexters are all full of shit, there's only one "proper" engineer.

Last I checked, there's no similar legal qualification requirement to be a "Scientist" in the same way there is to be a medical doctor. Or a nurse for that matter. Don't like it? Change the law, and then you'll have a more valid comparison.

[paddybrown]

By the way, unless you're in the rarified classic genre, which is very twattish, if you can play an instrument, you're a musician. and the definition of "instrument" is rather generous.

Quite agree. This is all part of today's unfortunate obsession with credentials. Most fields now have a fixed career path and progression through academia, and sadly there can be no more like Howard Carter, who became one of the leading archaeologists in the word after joining an expedition to Egypt at the age of 17 on the basis of his ability to make accurate drawings, or Henry Rawlinson, who deciphered cuneiform despite being a soldier and diplomat rather than an academic. Not everybody learns best in a formal classroom environment, and I think it's a shame that the academic path is the only acceptable one in an increasing number of fields, locking out the autodidacts, hands-on learners and late developers - especially now that a university education is so expensive.

[HunnyBunny]

On the Scibabe debate, I went to her site and picked an article at random - http://www.scibabe.com/food-babes-treat-1500-calories/ . If that is an example of someone who should be called a scientist then humanity really has dumbed down dramatically in the last 3 years.

[Steersman]

I think Steers has the answer for all this Scientist / Not Scientist quibbling. If a woman is not a woman when she stops producing ova, it follows that a Scientist is not a scientist when s/h/it stops producing science. Matt Cavanaugh once said Steers was right, so it must be so.

:lol: Well, I'm at least glad that you've recognized, apparently if belatedly, that at least someone has, presumably, "come within even a parsec of concluding have a fraction of a rational point on" the definition for "woman". ;-)

[free thoughtpolice]

Some points:
Calling yourself a "science guy" or sci-babe is different than calling yourself a scientist.

sci·en·tist (sī′ən-tĭst)
n. A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science.

That definition is an awfully broad one. Medical doctors and engineers have expert knowledge of science and apply it in their professions but don't call themselves scientists.
Sometimes, dictionaries can give extremely broad definitions, like the one above, or sometimes give overly narrow ones like "females are organisms that produce ova".
Often words can have more than one meaning and mean different things to different people and according to the setting it is used in. Someone that presents themselves as a scientist at an academic institution is expected to have specific credentials. Others may consider a lab technician that works in a facility that tests urine samples for drugs as a scientist.

[HunnyBunny]

I think Steers has the answer for all this Scientist / Not Scientist quibbling. If a woman is not a woman when she stops producing ova, it follows that a Scientist is not a scientist when s/h/it stops producing science. Matt Cavanaugh once said Steers was right, so it must be so.

:lol: Well, I'm at least glad that you've recognized, apparently if belatedly, that at least someone has, presumably, "come within even a parsec of concluding have a fraction of a rational point on" the definition for "woman". ;-)

I didn't say you were right*.



*You're not.

[jimhabegger]

It was difficult. For example, there was no penalty for them to tell me when they thought I was wrong.

I always thought that an indispensable part of my children's moral training was for me to recognize and admit when something I did was wrong.

[jimhabegger]

I'm wondering if all the people who are debating about the meanings of words, as if those words can have only one true or essential meaning, really feel that way, or if that's just a mutual agreement to keep the debates going.

[Brive1987]

Welch, I knew my comparison was a mistake and yet still self destructively dove over the cliff. I think my latter comment is a better jab - 'even' Boon recognises that structured work in a peer recognised and peer engaged environment is key. There is a place, especially in formal or public facing contexts, for industry accepted terms. In that context, Musician, Philosopher, Historian, Scientist, Linguist, Network Admin, are earnt titles. Some have certification hurdles, others have peer imposed expectations.

[Steersman]

I think Steers has the answer for all this Scientist / Not Scientist quibbling. If a woman is not a woman when she stops producing ova, it follows that a Scientist is not a scientist when s/h/it stops producing science. Matt Cavanaugh once said Steers was right, so it must be so.

:lol: Well, I'm at least glad that you've recognized, apparently if belatedly, that at least someone has, presumably, "come within even a parsec of concluding have a fraction of a rational point on" the definition for "woman". ;-)

I didn't say you were right*.

*You're not.

And I didn't say that you did. Only suggesting that you might want to update your previous assertion:

Has anyone, ever, anywhere on the internet where you have dumped this shitty pointless argument, responded to your points with anything other than derison, anger, reasoned answers why you are wrong, unreasoned answers why you are a fuckhead for promoting this? I have seen people from radfems to quasi-MRAs tell you to gtfo, I never seen anyone come within even a parsec of concluding you have a fraction of a rational point on this.

I would hate to see you labouring under a misapprehension .... :-)

[Brive1987]

I'm wondering if all the people who are debating about the meanings of words, as if those words can have only one true or essential meaning, really feel that way, or if that's just a mutual agreement to keep the debates going.

I have no basis with which to parse this collection of letters.

[Old_ones]

I mean why *cant* there be Scientists? If it's something anyone can do, then what separates Jenny McCarthy from Francis Collins?

Why would you be using Francis Collins as an example of a scientist? Collins has been head of the NIH since 2009. That isn't a research position, and his NIH page only lists him as a "special volunteer" at the National Genomics Research Institute. His list of selected publications doesn't have a single one since 2013. https://www.genome.gov/10000646/collins-publications/

Better get back to publishing, Francis. You are about to join Jerry Coyne on the garbage pile with the has-beens.

On a serious note, the most glaring difference between McCarthy and Collins is that McCarthy is an ignoramus that regards medicine as some kind of conspiracy. Its not only that McCarthy doesn't have any training in science, she actively argues against established science without any original evidence or support from the literature. If anything she is an anti-scientist.

[free thoughtpolice]

I have no basis with which to parse this collection of letters.

Maybe those that argue for a specific meaning rather than a general one are saying it just because they want a pissing match? :think:

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I think Steers has the answer for all this Scientist / Not Scientist quibbling. If a woman is not a woman when she stops producing ova, it follows that a Scientist is not a scientist when s/h/it stops producing science. Matt Cavanaugh once said Steers was right, so it must be so.

I changed my mind.

[Shatterface]

It's my understanding that Robert Evans, who holds the record in discovering the largest number of supernovae, doesn't have a science degree. Going further back, nor did Faraday, Edison or Mandel.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm wondering if all the people who are debating about the meanings of words, as if those words can have only one true or essential meaning, really feel that way, or if that's just a mutual agreement to keep the debates going.

I have no basis with which to parse this collection of letters.

If you arrange them in a 16-character wide grid, an acrosstix code is revealed saying:

Shake Speare he was ever Keyser Shose say I Ben Jonson

[free thoughtpolice]

I think Steers has the answer for all this Scientist / Not Scientist quibbling. If a woman is not a woman when she stops producing ova, it follows that a Scientist is not a scientist when s/h/it stops producing science. Matt Cavanaugh once said Steers was right, so it must be so.

I changed my mind.

Tough shit. He'll never let you live it down now. :P

[Steersman]

I'm wondering if all the people who are debating about the meanings of words, as if those words can have only one true or essential meaning, really feel that way, or if that's just a mutual agreement to keep the debates going.

You might ask that of Lewis Carroll, a rather sensible fellow in many ways - a mathematician even. Or at least consider what he left behind on the issue:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

As Matt sensibly and succintly noted, if a word can mean anything then it means nothing. Seems their claims to fame is to differentiate between classes, to designate different phenomena, but if every word refers to everything under the sun then there's no value in any of them.

And while it might be moot just what is the "true or essential meaning", many of them do have a single defining attribute - the principal component. Like with Aneris' example of "mother" the other day: while it can be used with various qualifying features - "step", quotation marks - there's still the underlying biological process and phenomenon that is prime. If you wish, for example, to redefine it to mean its opposite - like "father" - then Houston, we have a problem.

[ERV]

And just to reiterate-- I have no problems with scicomm. SciBabe is the one who thinks SciComm<<<Scientist. Which is, again, a huge red flag.

The best science journalist is unarguably Carl Zimmer. He has no advanced degrees. He has, however, proven over and over and over and over he is an accurate, knowledgeable, science journalist. He is the only journalist I will willingly speak to, if the opportunity ever arises.

SciBabe could do the same damn thing. Who cares if she is a 'scientist'? If she is a reliable, hard working science communicator, YAY! But we just got "WHY DIDNT YOU CALL ME A SCIENTIST? IM A SCIENTIST YOU MUST BE SEXIST!!!" It sounds like home girl doesn't want to pay her dues as a science communicator, and just wants to jump straight to the top of the credibility pile with "AHM A SCIENTIST! BELIEVES MEH!!"

No.

Now I think she is afraid of hard work. I think she's just an internet fad waiting to die out, and I hope she doesn't do any damage on her way down.

[Steersman]

I think Steers has the answer for all this Scientist / Not Scientist quibbling. If a woman is not a woman when she stops producing ova, it follows that a Scientist is not a scientist when s/h/it stops producing science. Matt Cavanaugh once said Steers was right, so it must be so.

I changed my mind.

Tough shit. He'll never let you live it down now. :P

Indeed. It's now been archived on the WayBackMachine ... ;-)

[HunnyBunny]

I didn't say you were right*.

*You're not.

And I didn't say that you did. Only suggesting that you might want to update your previous assertion:
*snip for sanity*

I didn't say you were right about Matt saying you were right either. I just couldn't be arsed caveating every single word to ensure you didn't play gotcha. Which you have. What a surprise.

You'll have to refer to the source, and ask Matt if you are right that he agrees with your ridiculous shit. I would say that you probably took a jokey comment out of context, in a desperate attempt to find validation.

[free thoughtpolice]

It's my understanding that Robert Evans, who holds the record in discovering the largest number of supernovae, doesn't have a science degree. Going further back, nor did Faraday, Edison or Mandel.

Michael Faraday would certainly qualify as a scientist despite his lack of a degree. Thomas Edison I would think be better classified as an inventor or technician/engineer. Howie Mandel on the other hand barely even qualifies as a comedian. :rimshot:

[Michael J]

Some points:
Calling yourself a "science guy" or sci-babe is different than calling yourself a scientist.

sci·en·tist (sī′ən-tĭst)
n. A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science.

That definition is an awfully broad one. Medical doctors and engineers have expert knowledge of science and apply it in their professions but don't call themselves scientists.
Sometimes, dictionaries can give extremely broad definitions, like the one above, or sometimes give overly narrow ones like "females are organisms that produce ova".
Often words can have more than one meaning and mean different things to different people and according to the setting it is used in. Someone that presents themselves as a scientist at an academic institution is expected to have specific credentials. Others may consider a lab technician that works in a facility that tests urine samples for drugs as a scientist.

I know engineers who have doctorates, do research, publish papers in journals and have to get funding. The definition of a scientists is very rubbery and I think only matters to Academic scientists and scienctist wanna-bes.