Biblestudent_007
Active Member
What's your understanding of what it means to be a scientist? . .
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's your understanding of what it means to be a scientist?
- Thread starter Biblestudent_007
- Start date
It is really just as the dictionary says. Would you happen to have more detailed questions, Biblestudent?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Does a scientist study in the field of anthropology?
It depends on his or her background and area of expertise, but sure, there are those who do.
Are you perhaps wanting to know how one applies the scientific method in anthropology?
Are you perhaps wanting to know how one applies the scientific method in anthropology?
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
A true scientist is a person who is curious by nature, and lives for asking questions about the world around us. Striving for a better understanding, but never standing still, comfortable in the process of pushing boundaries, and walking head first into the darkness of the unknown and undiscovered.
He is someone who has the understanding and respect for precision, accuracy, evidence and all that makes the scientific process so powerful and reliable. At the same time, this practical rigor is met with the imagination that sparks the beginning of inquiries that have changed our world and will do in the future. To be excited about this is to be a real scientist.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
That describes most first graders.
Everybody knows that a real scientist is a scientist that supports evolution, global warming, and all other liberal philosophies.
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
Perhaps deep down all scientists are first graders at heart.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I'm starting to believe that the way philosophy and imagination has replaced objective scientific evidence.
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
How relevant and important is 'evidence' in relation to science? . .
Skwim
Veteran Member
It's one of the mainstays of the field.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Testing ideas to make sure they fit the evidence is the key to the field. All else is bookkeeping.
Luminous
non-existential luminary
To be a scientist you must do experiments...or have studied the history of experiments. You must also deal with population dynamics and how the experiments relate to reality. Putting forth hypothesis that are testable is also good. It is also good to be pure agnostic to be a scientist.
Last edited:
Luminous
non-existential luminary
That describes most first graders.
Everybody knows that a real scientist is a scientist that supports evolution, global warming, and all other liberal philosophies.
that's right. because reality has a liberal bias, so scientists should instead be supporting the anti-liberal philosophies of destruction, ignorance, and stupidity. :sarcastic
Magic and Non-effect of gases . are retarded philosophies
also, your ignorance forgot to read this sentence:
Luminous
non-existential luminary
yes unlike hard sciences like atomic theory and gravitational theory
OMG ignorance makes me angry.
Last edited:
That describes most first graders.
Everybody knows that a real scientist is a scientist that supports evolution, global warming, and all other liberal philosophies.
It just turns out that way. It would be different if the world worked in a different way.
Noaidi
slow walker
A scientist is someone who seeks to discover how Nature works. This is done by hypothesis-testing through observation and experimentation using appropriate methodology, analysing the results and formulating a conclusion. It's that simple.
What sort of answer are you looking for? I feel there is an unasked question in your OP, given that you've posted in the Evolution vs. Creationism thread...
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
I understand what you mean.
Not anything particular or specific ~ rather the OP is open and is not seeking anything specific other than learning about 'science'.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
that's right. because reality has a liberal bias, so scientists should instead be supporting the anti-liberal philosophies of destruction, ignorance, and stupidity. :sarcastic
Magic and Non-effect of gases . are retarded philosophies
also, your ignorance forgot to read this sentence:
And it is because of this liberal bias and the research monies controlled by those that promote a humanist philosophy, scientists are pressured into if they want to forward their careers they must support liberal interpretations of data.
It is like when the universe was first discovered to have a beginning. That was fought hard against by some scientists because it didn't support their evolutionary naturalistic philosophy. It supported the creationist philosophy. It took time for science to accept that the universe had a beginning and it will take time for science to accept that there must be a creator. It might take another 200 years before science admits that a creator and design is a valid interpretation of the evidence.
Last edited: