What is the needed qualification ?

[ChristineM]

And a few wannabe scientists?

Maybe, I've not come across them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 are voluntary certifications for many types of scientist.

Practicing some disciplines of science requires a licence in some areas. For instance, you can't work professionally as a geologist, geoscientist or geophysicist in Canada without a licence.

 

[Orbit]

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.

At least in the US, the usual qualification to be part of the scientific community is a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree. I always found it interesting that no matter what the field, the degree title is "Philosophy". Of course the title is followed by the area of study, like "she has a PhD in Geology".

 

[Ella S.]

I would say that a scientist is someone who is currently employed in a position where they are doing research in the natural sciences.

Most scientists don't call themselves "scientists," but more narrowly describe their specific field and career, such as "biomedical researcher" or "synthetic chemical engineer" or "theoretical astrophysicist."

Typically, this requires formal education from an accredited degree program in that given field.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

No, but there are requirements before the cognoscenti will agree with you.

As @MikeF indicated, we can consider daily life a type of informal science, since we're busy evaluating the evidence of our senses to discern accurate generalizations that we can use later to accurately predict outcomes, such as which route to work is usually the quickest, which is what formal scientists are doing in their laboratories and observatories. Look at @Subduction Zone's diagram. Ask a question: Where's a good place to eat? Do background research: What do other people recommend? Construct a hypothesis: Girard's possibly has good Italian food according to the "research," and Tony's is dirty and slow. Construct a hypothesis and test it: Girard's will likely be a good experience based on rave reviews, so let's try Girards. Analyze Data and draw conclusions: The meal was excellent and this will likely be a good place to come for this type of meal, or the reviews were wrong. You can see the parallels. If the test produced a bad experience, go test Tony's if it's the only alternative in town. This is informal; science (empiricism).

How about a physician? Is he a scientist? Only if he's doing and publishing original research. If he's seeing patients, he's applying science, but is not a scientist. If he's the dean of a medical school, he's not even applying science.

But the physician is doing informal science. He's collecting data (history, physical, old medical records, lab, radiology), generating a differential diagnosis (the list of possible explanations for the data collected with particular attention to the commonest illnesses and the ones that benefit greatly from early diagnosis), and collecting additional information to rule one of these possibilities in and the rest out when possible in order to make a diagnosis and prognosis.

But then he goes home and decides to start experimenting with meal recipes. "I wonder if lime will make this taste better," he experiments by adding it, he collects data by tasting it, etc.. He's doing informal science again. All empiricism (interpreting experience) is science, whether formal or informal.

 

[Ella S.]

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?

There are scientists who are not well-read on the philosophy of science and scientists that may hold idiosyncratic ideas that are not the consensus within their field.

Scientists generally only have expertise within the specific domain of their field of study. They do tend to be a bit more scientifically literate in general, but this does not mean that they're qualified to make statements about fields outside of the area of their expertise.

When you meet a scientist who performs an argument to their own authority about a subject that is not their area of expertise, then they genuinely do have some shortcomings as far as the philosophy of science is concerned.

Just because somebody works as a scientist does not mean that they have a scientific worldview or are scrupulous in their scientific thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are scientists who are not well-read on the philosophy of science and scientists that may hold idiosyncratic ideas that are not the consensus within their field.

Scientists generally only have expertise within the specific domain of their field of study. They do tend to be a bit more scientifically literate in general, but this does not mean that they're qualified to make statements about fields outside of the area of their expertise.

When you meet a scientist who performs an argument to their own authority about a subject that is not their area of expertise, then they genuinely do have some shortcomings as far as the philosophy of science is concerned.

Just because somebody works as a scientist does not mean that they have a scientific worldview or are scrupulous in their scientific thinking.

And we saw a lot of that sort of bad science during the pandemic. "Masks don't work, this doctor says so" . Okay, the man is a doctor. Is a virologist? Is he an expert on how diseases re spread? If not then that argument can be refuted with a "So what?"

 

[Nakosis]

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 imagine it is a job title. So if the job your are getting paid for has the word scientist in it, you could safely call yourself one.
Like an engineer. The job I previously held had the word "engineer" in the job title. Fairly comfortable going about, claiming to have been an engineer.