I Love Science

@SW-User I’m a redhead, if that helps? 😂

@newjaninev2 It doesn't lol. So, are you or not?

@SW-User my point was (is) why does it matter? (I’m not even sure how one defines a 'scientist’)

@newjaninev2 Well, I consider a scientist as a passionate, intellectually curious individual who does experiments and has made a discovery and created something (whether something physical or just a theory) using the scientific method.

Many men that are held up to us as scientists - like Neil Degrasse Tyson , Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, Laurence Krauss, Richard Dawkins - are not real scientists, but celebrities of the science fiction religion.

I will give Richard Dawkins credit where credit is due, though, he is the father of memes or of memetics. He started a whole new branch of "science" that he is embarrassed to take credit for haha. Everything else is just speculation.

Now onto my question. What I was specifically asking you is if you are a scientist by profession?

@newjaninev2 He’s out looking for attention again. When we don’t bite at his ludicrous posts, he’ll look for ones to ridicule.

@SW-User You are aware that all those people you have mentioned actually have doctorates in their given fields? You are aware of what is required to obtain a doctorate, aren't you?

@SW-User Being antiscience is quite popular among stupid people. Bush Jnr are quite well known for not understanding or being interested in science. And trump ignored, misrepresented and howled down scientists who had inconvenient opinions that didnt make him the hero.. I suppose that is the level you aspire to. Maybe you should run for office?😷

@BlueSkyKing If someone wants to make a statement, or take a position, I expect them to just do it.

I have no time for disingenuous games, or for dishonest posing.

@BlueSkyKing Nah, just asking a question and engaging. That is the purpose of this site. Desperation and projection are not a good look on you.

@whowasthatmaskedman Scary thing is that a stance like that would probably get votes.

@Bushranger I know.. What is it with some people that they dont want anyone smarter than them in charge? Look at our own experience on both sides. Rudd and Turnbull. Forget the politics. But they were both 10 IQ points clear of anyone else in their parties. So they had to be cut down. Its really a shame you couldnt get both egos in the same room. They would have been a formidable team.😷

@Bushranger Uh....yeah, I am aware. Obtaining a degree/degrees is not what makes one a scientist in the truest sense of the word (see the definition I have given above).

@SW-User What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?
[i]Steven Novella[/i]

@SW-User It's necessary to do original research in your chosen field. Sometimes the originality may be small, but it is still original research.

This means that each of the people you mentioned fit the definition you gave earlier. Just because they don't agree with your world view doesn't make them any less learned.

@Bushranger And to have your alternate view recognised you need to provide your own verifiable, repeatable facts to be checked, because Phd work is peer reveued.😷

@newjaninev2 What do I think science is? If you read what I wrote above you wouldn't have asked that question and wouldn't be saying that I think it's magic, but dishonesty is your strongest suit. "Well, I consider a scientist as a passionate, intellectually curious individual who does experiments and has made a discovery and created something (whether something physical or just a theory) using the scientific method." That method is observation, asking questions, testing, and making predictions. Philosophical speculation does not count. The science fiction religionists I have mentioned above promote the philosophy of science essentially, not science.

@whowasthatmaskedman I can't remember where I read it, but there was a quote that publication in a peer reviewed journal is only the start of the peer review process. Once your idea is out there, it will be tested more stringently than in the original peer review process.

@Bushranger Yes. If only because a lot of your competion either want to prove you wrong , or use your work as a jumping off point for their own Phd. You create the breakthrough they get to push further.😷

@SW-User I did not say that you think science to be magic. The sole reference to magic is that Steven Novella said science is not magic.

[quote]passionate, intellectually curious[/quote]
common attributes, but not necessary for a definition

[quote]who does experiments[/quote]
Again, common, but not necessary

[quote]has made a discovery[/quote]
Definitely not necessary

[quote]just a theory[/quote]
Seriously? The greatest achievement in science deserves more than 'just'

[quote]using the scientific method[/quote]
Now you’re on to it!
Scientific methodology is a way of asking the universe questions, and then knowing how much confidence we can have in its responses

It’s the best way we have to keep from fooling others and, more importantly, to keep from fooling ourselves
[i](Neil deGrasse Tyson)[/I]

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself... and you are the easiest person to fool
[i]Richard Feynman[/I]

@whowasthatmaskedman I once saw someone comment that they hate a particular scientist, and I pointed out to them that [i]nobody[/i] hates a scientist more than another scientist 😂

@newjaninev2 True. And competitive within the fields is outdone only by cometition between competing fields. The way Sheldon Cooper tears down "lesser sciences" isnt that far wrong.😷

@newjaninev2 I agree that a theory deserves more than 'just' and I know scientific theory is to be distinguished from the way we use theory colloquially in ever day life. Theories and their predictive power can have just as much of a contribution to our every day life as can a physical device, and the theory is usually what leads to the physical device, so wrong choice of wording there on my part.


Making experiments is absolutely necessary to be considered a scientist. I don't see how this is disputable.

And I also think a real scientist has to have some degree of curiosity and passion, otherwise he will get nowhere. Passion and intellectual curiosity is the starting point of every scientist in history. That always precedes the scientific method. It is what created it.

True. Making a discovery might not be necessary to be considered a scientist per say, but it does make one of the most commendable and highest level scientists I would say.

My problem is that philosophical speculations on the origins of life, the origins of the universe, the origins of the species, the multiverse, 11 dimensions (all of the things the above scientism proponents espouse) are not based on the scientific method and hard science, but the philosophy of science.

@SW-User "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy ..."Thats Shakespeare, and he is talking about a philosophy or belief system, like a religion. This is not science in any form. So stop refering to it as science.😷

@SW-User [quote]Making experiments is absolutely necessary[/quote]

Two of the greatest recent theorists... Darwin and Einstein... weren’t exactly spending all their time in the lab

I’ve always been in awe of a remark by Sir Ernest Rutherford (kiwi!) when he began work at the Cavendish Laboratory. He said tohis team "We haven't got the money, so we'll have to think"

@SW-User What’s ‘scientism’?