What is the needed qualification ?

[Spirit of Light]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

Well a degree helps. Heh.

Still science is something that isn't exclusive to academia. Lay people contribute as well.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well a degree helps. Heh.

Still science is something that isn't exclusive to academia. Lay people contribute as well.

Luckely for the world...I am not going to try to become a scientist

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

There is no "official" scientist. But to me to be a scientist one has to do work in the sciences. That is why I am not a scientist. I do not work in any of the sciences currently. And even when I did I was not directly involved in a very important qualification. I did not publish. Others did that I worked with, they would have been the real scientists.

Basically to be a scientist one must follow the scientific method. Properly publishing one's work is a big part of the scientific method. Part of the scientific method is making one's work known to others so that others have a chance to refute or confirm one's work.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There is no "official" scientist. But to me to be a scientist one has to do work in the sciences. That is why I am not a scientist. I do not work in any of the sciences currently. And even when I did I was not directly involved in a very important qualification. I did not publish. Others did that I worked with, they would have been the real scientists.

Basically to be a scientist one must follow the scientific method. Properly publishing one's work is a big part of the scientific method. Part of the scientific method is making one's work known to others so that others have a chance to refute or confirm one's work.

But as seen here in RF too, some "scientists" are not very good at giving the proof science ask for are they then scientists at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be a scientist one must follow the scientific method. There is no one single scientific method, but this gives a good basic flow chart of the method. If one follows it then degree or not one could claim to be a scientist:

Please note the very last step. It is a very important one.

 

[Spirit of Light]

To be a scientist one must follow the scientific method. There is no one single scientific method, but this gives a good basic flow chart of the method. If one follows it then degree or not one could claim to be a scientist:

Please note the very last step. It is a very important one.

That is a lot of work needed
Thank you for sharing

 

[Subduction Zone]

But as seen here in RF too, some "scientists" are not very good at giving the proof science ask for are they then scientists at all?

Okay, minor correction. The word "proof" is not used in the sciences. Even gravity is not "proven". Well supported ideas are taken as being conditionally true. All there is in science is scientific evidence.

If a person does not understand the concept of scientific evidence, and it is a well defined idea, if a person has not followed the scientific method, and most of all if a person has not published in a well respected professional journal then one cannot really claim to be a scientist.

 

[Altfish]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

In Creation World, you just need a white coat with some pens in your top pocket

 

[Spirit of Light]

Okay, minor correction. The word "proof" is not used in the sciences. Even gravity is not "proven". Well supported ideas are taken as being conditionally true. All there is in science is scientific evidence.

If a person does not understand the concept of scientific evidence, and it is a well defined idea, if a person has not followed the scientific method, and most of all if a person has not published in a well respected professional journal then one cannot really claim to be a scientist.

When you speak about science i clearly understand you

 

[MikeF]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

I often say we are all born amateur scientists or empiricists. As with other endeavors, to become a professional requires a certain level of study and training, as well as proven ability. Not everyone who wants to be a professional scientist will become one.

 

[Nimos]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

Without being 100% sure, I think the term scientist is sort of like calling oneself an artist, worker or inventor etc.

So I think its just a general terms mostly used for people working in the field of science, so its not a protected title as such.

 

[sun rise]

But as seen here in RF too, some "scientists" are not very good at giving the proof science ask for are they then scientists at all?

Science is so specialized that a question can be asked of someone who does not have the in depth knowledge to answer. Or it might be under investigation.

The word "proof" is not used in the sciences.

Equations can be proven but you are referring to evidence proving a theory.

But even there, some experiments can be said to prove a theory when the experiments are repeated many times by different researchers. I consider evolution proven, for example whereas the details of evolution are in many cases still under investigation or subject to new evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Equations can be proven but you are referring to evidence proving a theory.

But even there, some experiments can be said to prove a theory when the experiments are repeated many times by different researchers. I consider evolution proven, for example whereas the details of evolution are in many cases still under investigation or subject to new evidence.

I agree. There are different standards for "proof". I do like to caution people at times and try to explain the provisional nature of science, which by the way is why scientific articles use the terms that creationists hate such as "may have" and other terms that do not declare things to be written in stone. Oops, almost got side tracked. If they do really want to use the word "proof" I will ask them if anyone has ever been proven to be guilty at a trial. They will always say "yes" if they are being honest. then I point out that by those standards, the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that evolution has been proven. All doubt is easily shown to be unreasonable.

 

[ChristineM]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

You would probably need a minimum of a BSc (preferably a MSc) in the field you are looking to work in to get a job as a researcher.
Then preferably go on to earn a PhD.
Top scientists tend to be double docs,

 

[Spirit of Light]

You would probably need a minimum of a BSc (preferably a MSc) in the field you are looking to work in to get a job as a researcher.
Then preferably go on to earn a PhD.
Top scientists tend to be double docs,

Luckily for me i have no dream of becoming a scientist i am just a bit baffeled by a few "scientists" here in RF

 

[ChristineM]

Luckily for me i have no dream of becoming a scientist i am just a bit baffeled by a few "scientists" here in RF

I know of a a couple of scientists on RF, all are eminently qualified for their positions

 

[PureX]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

I would presume, logically, that one should probably be engaged in the activity of doing science to call oneself a 'scientist'. Although, I admit that the activity of doing science does not have to mean actually, physically carrying out scientific experiments. It could mean engaging in the thought process that determines how such experiments are conducted, and evaluated.

It's sort of like asking what defines an "artist". Certainly, engaging in the activity of creating works of art would be the obvious qualifier. But artists are still artists when they are not at the moment engaged in that activity. Mostly because even when not presently engaged in the physical act of making art, they are still contemplating it and perceiving the world in relation to it. Because that is their nature.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Are there a set rules/guidelines one has to be able to show before one can call oneself scientist?

Or is the title "scientist" an open title everyone can use freely?
That sounds scary to me.

You’ll have a degree in a particular field, a doctorate and possibly a PhD too and you’ll be doing research, either academically or within the private or public sector.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I know of a a couple of scientists on RF, all are eminently qualified for their positions

And a few wannabe scientists?