Shatterface wrote:CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Yeah, and SciBabe ain't practicing science any more than I am. She wants da title, she gotta earn it, degree or no. Nothing I've seen argues she's doing science, just a sideshow about degrees and history of science and a few folk who done it without any degrees, but nothing about what she done, yup. She just whined for victim points, and all the rest of this has nothing to do with her claims.
I'm not arguing that she is a scientist, I'm arguing that being a scientist is about
practicing science, not the qualifications you have, the research grants, or the number of students, or any of the other shit the Steersbots have got hung up on.
With the caveat that things have become so specialized these days so its bloody hard to practice science as an amateur, I dont think anyone here is going to disagree with that. There may be some discussion over what exactly is practicing science, for example, does cataloging stars count? Or does it count if you never publish your work? But most everyone here will agree that to be a scientist, you must "do science."
If you have a PhD and a publication record in a relevant field, you get a presumption of being a scientist, but people without the degree can certainly do it (there may be legitimate disagreement if you can be a scientist without publications), as ERV pointed out there are several technicians in her lab who have progressed to doing science, but you will probably have a harder time showing it, because you actually have to show your work. Conversely, as the example of PZ demonstrates that presumption is rebuttable.
What ERV and others seem to be suggesting is that you dont get that presumption if you only have a Masters and no publication record. This agrees with my experience, as someone with a Masters. So, Scibabe doesnt get that presumption. If she wants to be considered a scientist, she needs to work for it.
A second, but related point is that science communication is different than science. This doesnt mean that science communication isnt important, it is, but its a different thing than doing science. So both Scibabe and The Science Guy are doing important work, but neither is a scientist. A reporter for Beatz magazine is not a musician (well, he may be if he plays at other times, but hes not a musician by virtue of reporting for Beatz) nor is an audio engineer or a record producer. They are all important to the music industry, but they are not musicians.
A third point that I believe was made, and I will second, is that the scientists I know dont call themselves "scientists." They are biologists, mycologists, biochemists, medical researchers, astrophysicists, theoretical nuclear physicsts, neurobiologists. Their self-descriptions almost always drill down to some sort of specialty within science. Others may call them a scientist, but they refer to themselves with more specific labels. As a result, I tend to be very skeptical when one claims to be simply a "scientist." In my experience thats a big sign that someone is looking for unearned credibility, either as an actual scientist speaking outside his field, or as a technician or lab worker looking to inflate his credentials.
Putting those items together leaves me a bit suspicious of Scibabe's latest kerfufle. She appears to want to be described as a "scientist" rather than a more specific label, on the basis of a Masters and no publication record, despite the fact that her actual activities are in science communication, not doing science. And assumes the only reason shes not so described is because sexism.
Nevermind the odd hypocrisy of objecting to being promoted with the branding ("Scibabe") that she created for herself, and she is best know under. Really? She doesnt recognize that Scibabe has much greater name recognition than Yvette D'Entremont? And in promotional material it makes sense to use the label with the most name recognition?
None of this disparages the work she did in fighting Vani Hari or her other science communication efforts. Those efforts stand on their own. But this does make me suspicious that she is not as clear a thinker as I might have assumed earlier when I only knew her from those efforts. For the moment, however, Ill borrow some of welch's optimism and assume this is a passing fancy.
