Fascinating.
What makes a real Scientist?
- Thread starter KJbushway
- Start date
Fascinating.
I asked my boyfriend, the scientist, what he thought and this is his paraphrased response:
A scientist is someone who investigates the world around them, through biology, chemistry, geology, or physics, but they don't have to be wearing a lab coat. They can be a child trying to understand what rocks are made out of. Sometimes people become scientists to advance technology for profit or sometimes just because of their desire to understand how something works. It may seem like useless knowledge to other people but the scientist recognizes that one day it may be important. Unfortunately the more advanced research today takes a lot of money, and the only people who are going to provide that money are those who expect to receive a return on it, which accounts for the unwillingness to invest in things like warp drive that the investors may think is a little too out there to make them any profit.
A scientist is someone who investigates the world around them, through biology, chemistry, geology, or physics, but they don't have to be wearing a lab coat. They can be a child trying to understand what rocks are made out of. Sometimes people become scientists to advance technology for profit or sometimes just because of their desire to understand how something works. It may seem like useless knowledge to other people but the scientist recognizes that one day it may be important. Unfortunately the more advanced research today takes a lot of money, and the only people who are going to provide that money are those who expect to receive a return on it, which accounts for the unwillingness to invest in things like warp drive that the investors may think is a little too out there to make them any profit.
Yeah, I think that the lab and the labcoat are a rather narrow view of what a scientist is. In reality, it's really part of the environment where a scientist will work that will define him, as it's not all scientists that work in a lab with a labcoat. For example, a science or physics professor can very much be a scientist, often participating in research, but they might not even wear a lab coat or work in a lab in their lifetimes.
My Dad was a Physics teacher, got a job at a nuclear power plant when he was younger, and had a large interest in rocketry and astronomy. I very much consider him to be a scientist in his own right. He now owns a business building telescopes and selling them everywhere. For awhile, he worked at the local science center, ie museum, where their uniform is a blue labcoat, and innovated many things, such as a bed of nails. Though that approach is more tongue-in-cheek as it's more of an image and presentation thing in terms of recognizability.
Do you at least have graying temples? And a Tesla Coil? Real Scientists always have one of those things buzzing in the background.
That's a Rock Star not a scientist.
Holy crap...I'm a scientist! Take that higher education!
This is all true, except that not all scientists think that the knowledge they gain will ever have any practical value; some people are just passionately curious about reality.
No self-respecting scientist should claim that something is 100% accurate or absolute.
In theory, a scientist would have to treat everything as subject to change (even things that are 'proven' to work).
I cringe when in today's world theological aspects are applied to science.
It shouldn't have anything to do with 'belief', 'faith' and similarly ridiculous concepts (none of which are a requirement for an individual to be imaginative, insightful, full of dreams, and so forth).
In theory, a scientist would have to treat everything as subject to change (even things that are 'proven' to work).
I cringe when in today's world theological aspects are applied to science.
It shouldn't have anything to do with 'belief', 'faith' and similarly ridiculous concepts (none of which are a requirement for an individual to be imaginative, insightful, full of dreams, and so forth).
Well, I had greying temples when I was in college: right now the greying is waging a glorious campaign of conquest all over my scalp which by the look of it would finally be victorious in a few years...
No Tesla coils for me, tho (or lab coats, for what that matters): I am more of a theoretician and data analyst than a experimenter, so I always gravitated more towards the "distinguished professor" stereotype than the "mad scientist". You may call me A Gentleman and a Scholar.
Last edited:
Something Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions may throw an interesting light on this topic.
Kuhn argued that there are two types of science: normal science, and extraordinary science.
Normal scientific research is guided by and conducted within a paradigm--an outstanding achievement that both resolves the most pressing problems of the day, and raises a host of new problems to solve.
Normal science, in Kuhn's view, is essentially a form of puzzle-solving, and attracts people who enjoy solving puzzles. The outcomes of normal-scientific experiments are known (or at least, believed to be known) in advance, just as the picture formed by a jigsaw puzzle is known in advance.
The problem, historically, is that no scientific paradigm has ever been able to account for the results of every experiment. Sooner or later, the experiments of normal science have always produced unexpected and anomalous results. Some of these anomalies have been resolved by articulating the paradigm, but others have turned out to be genuine counterinstances that call the whole paradigm into question. And over time, as these counterinstances accumulate, the field is plunged into crisis.
This crisis encourages both a different type of research and requires a different type of researcher--someone who can think outside the box, as it were. And sooner or later, some bright boy has come along with a new paradigm--a new theory that both explains all these anomalies, and points the way down new avenues for research. The same cycle has then repeated itself, as normal science and normal scientists begin to fill in the blanks.
The classic examples of the 'structure of scientific revolutions', of course, come from the histories of astronomy and physics. The discovery of Neptune began with an attempt to solve one of the puzzles of normal science: the production of a set of astronomical tables for the recently-discovered planet Uranus. But Uranus did not behave the way that contemporary physics predicted it should.
This particular anomaly was ultimately resolved by articulating the Newtonian paradigm: Le Verrier predicted that the orbit of Uranus was being influenced by the gravity of a hitherto-undetected trans-Uranian planet. And he was right: Neptune was right where he predicted it would be.
But the Newtonian paradigm was ultimately thrown into crisis by other anomalies, including a smaller but more stubbornly inexplicable anomaly in the orbit of Mercury. Le Verrier thought that this was due, once again, to the influence of an undiscovered planet--an intra-mercurial planet that he christened Vulcan. But this planet was never discovered, and ultimately, the motions of Mercury required a whole new paradigm of physics to explain: in this case, Einstein's general relativity.
If Kuhn was right, then it would seem to follow that there are two types of "real scientists": large numbers of clever but essentially uncreative puzzle-solvers ("normal" scientists) and small numbers of creative paradigm-shifters like Newton and Einstein.
Kuhn argued that there are two types of science: normal science, and extraordinary science.
Normal scientific research is guided by and conducted within a paradigm--an outstanding achievement that both resolves the most pressing problems of the day, and raises a host of new problems to solve.
Normal science, in Kuhn's view, is essentially a form of puzzle-solving, and attracts people who enjoy solving puzzles. The outcomes of normal-scientific experiments are known (or at least, believed to be known) in advance, just as the picture formed by a jigsaw puzzle is known in advance.
The problem, historically, is that no scientific paradigm has ever been able to account for the results of every experiment. Sooner or later, the experiments of normal science have always produced unexpected and anomalous results. Some of these anomalies have been resolved by articulating the paradigm, but others have turned out to be genuine counterinstances that call the whole paradigm into question. And over time, as these counterinstances accumulate, the field is plunged into crisis.
This crisis encourages both a different type of research and requires a different type of researcher--someone who can think outside the box, as it were. And sooner or later, some bright boy has come along with a new paradigm--a new theory that both explains all these anomalies, and points the way down new avenues for research. The same cycle has then repeated itself, as normal science and normal scientists begin to fill in the blanks.
The classic examples of the 'structure of scientific revolutions', of course, come from the histories of astronomy and physics. The discovery of Neptune began with an attempt to solve one of the puzzles of normal science: the production of a set of astronomical tables for the recently-discovered planet Uranus. But Uranus did not behave the way that contemporary physics predicted it should.
This particular anomaly was ultimately resolved by articulating the Newtonian paradigm: Le Verrier predicted that the orbit of Uranus was being influenced by the gravity of a hitherto-undetected trans-Uranian planet. And he was right: Neptune was right where he predicted it would be.
But the Newtonian paradigm was ultimately thrown into crisis by other anomalies, including a smaller but more stubbornly inexplicable anomaly in the orbit of Mercury. Le Verrier thought that this was due, once again, to the influence of an undiscovered planet--an intra-mercurial planet that he christened Vulcan. But this planet was never discovered, and ultimately, the motions of Mercury required a whole new paradigm of physics to explain: in this case, Einstein's general relativity.
If Kuhn was right, then it would seem to follow that there are two types of "real scientists": large numbers of clever but essentially uncreative puzzle-solvers ("normal" scientists) and small numbers of creative paradigm-shifters like Newton and Einstein.
Also real scientists always have A Plan...either to save humanity or enslave it, sometimes with a race of Atomic Supermen.
I have a Spock action figure. New anthropomorphic personification, same old divine spark.
I have a Spock action figure. New anthropomorphic personification, same old divine spark.
Perhaps what I need is a bust of Spock, with a Greek helmet?
I see your thinkgeek and I raise you a SCIENCE!
Well played sir, well played
Agreed.
Scientists are too busy doing science to worry about being cool. Actually, that's probably a better explanation for the crazy hair.
You'd look that way too if you were about to do something really cool with chemicals and possibly a laser.
No self-respecting scientist would claim the Bible had been entirely disproven. They may try and test certain specific aspects of it where enough evidence exists for a meaningful investigation, but by and large the Bible is neither provable nor disprovable----and therefore of little interest to scientists.
Well, airline pilots try to talk like Chuck Yeager, so why not.
Because they understand why those concepts and theories are exciting. The really good science teachers are those who can translate these reasons into laymens' terms and thus pass along the excitement.
Science isn't really about proving anything. There's a lot of disproving, of course, but proving is a lot more difficult and usually best left to the mathematicians.
Science is rather about explaining empirical observations using a framework which allows meaningful predictions to be made about future behavior. This framework is called a Theory.
-- Lindley
That is true. the misconception that all or the majority of scientist are non-religious, atheist, Etc. isn't true. What you may witness or hear is people like Christopher Hitchens(major Athiest) who are scientists, but come out and talk about how the bible isn't true. These kind of scientist are what you see, they just have aloud voice it seems like becuase they can draw an audience. Scientist only hit down the bible on certain things(Ex. How old the earth is, carbon dating truth.) that science is able to explain or have more proof of.
I'm starting to go gray at the temples. Well, I did want to look like Reed Richards when I was a kid....
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Dad was considered a rocket scientist by most, even though he only had an ME. He could take a program from start to finish--“We need a thruster rocket for this spacecraft. It needs to do this [description].” Dad could take that, work (with others) on the design, what materials would be required for the various components they designed, test the materials, test the components made from the materials, assemble the components, and test the unit. Then troubleshoot anything that didn’t show up in the prior tests--everything works, it just doesn’t work when put all together.
He was VERY good at what he did. One of a handful in the country who knew that stuff to that depth before he retired.
Oh, and like all REAL scientists, he was absent-minded as hell. Cross-filed EVERYTHING.
He was VERY good at what he did. One of a handful in the country who knew that stuff to that depth before he retired.
Oh, and like all REAL scientists, he was absent-minded as hell. Cross-filed EVERYTHING.
