Some thoughts. I may see if there’s some interest at USA Today to run something in response.
[Update a while later]
You know, in rereading, and thinking about it, that lead is quite fascinating in it’s apparent implications:
Keith Baugues is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent wintry day from expressing skepticism about global warming — something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.
Let’s leave aside for a moment the issue of whether or not Baugues actually is a scientist. Should we infer from this that only scientists are allowed to express skepticism about global warming? Or that “true” scientists aren’t skeptics, and therefore no one can be? Or what?
A Daily Mail article has a bit of relevance to the topic.
The question of “who is a real scientist” used to be answered as anyone who uses experiment and critical reasoning to figure out something about how the natural world works. In the hands of the warmists, the question has become nothing but a hateful, narrow version of “Who is a real Christian?” It’s aim is merely to exclude, denigrate, enforce blind orthodoxy, and suppress any efforts to approach data with an open mind in an honest search for knowledge.
The question of “who is a real scientist” used to be answered as anyone who uses experiment and critical reasoning to figure out something about how the natural world works.
Ha! There’s that physicist’s bias again.
There’s plenty of scientists who don’t do any experiments. Many realms of science are inaccessible to experimental methods, and for others the concept doesn’t even make sense (e.g., mathematics). Some scientists are pure data collectors who pride themselves on being hypothesis free. Some scientists apply science to actually do productive work or improve processes and efficiency – typically on activities far removed from “the natural world”.
When Ernest Rutherford said all science is either physics or stamp collecting, he was being facetious, but even through denigrating it he recognized there is more to science than the experimental.
A comment on the “pure data collectors”.
If they’re actively avoiding known pitfalls, doing appropriate testing of variables that should not affect their results, designing experiments for maximal information per trial, as well as analyzing the data to death for oddities and discrepancies … yes, they’re doing science. The hypothesis is “I bet I can get a more accurate and precise measurement of XYZ.” or “I can get a more up-to-date measurement of some time dependent something-or-other.”
If they’re not, they’re gathering anecdotes. Then polishing them off and smiling for the camera. Combine this with review articles that cherry pick, and … well, there’s a large amount of “well-respected” anecdotes.
I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about. There’s scientists who literally just collect data and put it in books (or more commonly nowadays: databases).
The public perception of a scientist as someone who thinks big thoughts to figure out the meaning of the universe is just as wrong as the Hollywood conception of a scientist making monsters and time machines.
When the term “data collectors” comes to mind, so does Tycho Brahe. His decades of astronomical measurements were more accurate than any gathered before and helped astronomers like Kepler change our understanding of the universe.
Yes, but Tycho’s measurements could just as well have been used by the Church to refine their epicycles. Oddly, modern planetary orbital calculations moved away from Kepler and are back to epicycles, this time in the form of putting positions in the frequency domain and summing the infinite series of perturbations. I’ve been tempted to cut gears and use the modern algorithms to build a truly accurate Antikythera mechanism, which looks quite doable.
Anyway, monks and priests had long devoted themselves to data gathering, cataloging all the wonderful elements of God’s creation. Exhaustive and careful data collection is a requirement of science, but the activity is not sufficient to stand in as science itself, since the data doesn’t uniquely determine how it is used.
Similarly, although mathematics is a very useful tool, it’s a useful tool for almost anything else, too, such as a sophisticated analysis of Biblical prophesies or refining astrological charts.
Graphic arts are also useful to science, since a picture is worth a thousand words, and anatomy, taxonomy, cartography, and astronomy were once highly dependent on the abilities of illustrators. But art doesn’t automatically produce science, either. It depends what you’re illustrating and why.
“…and for others the concept doesn’t even make sense (e.g., mathematics).”
Not necessarily. Sometimes, when I am trying to prove a new theorem, I will first run a Monte Carlo of the equations. If it works every time, I can proceed on my present course of inquiry. If not, I can either modify my hypothesis to constrain it away from the cases where it didn’t work, or drop it altogether and try a new line. It’s a definite time saver compared to working out all the details to find out I spent a lot of time pursuing a dead end.
Most of the no-true-Scientist peddlers you’re likely to run into wouldn’t consider a simulation to be an experiment. Many wouldn’t consider a mathematician to be a scientist either though, so I wouldn’t worry about it.
Well, yes but, numerical simulation is specifically an experiment in mathematics. The problem comes when people try to claim it is an experiment in something else.
Science is distinct from mathematics, which is far older, and the “natural world” is a term used to distinguish the subject from the metaphysical world or theology. Science used to be called “natural philosophy”, which is the term used by Newton and Lord Kelvin.
Clearly, when Carl Friedrich Gauss, mathematician, astronomer and physicist, said:
Mathematics is the queen of sciences and number theory is the queen of mathematics. She often condescends to render service to astronomy and other natural sciences, but in all relations she is entitled to the first rank.
.. he didn’t know what he was talking about. I mean what would that guy know, right?
http://xkcd.com/435/
There are a variety of ways to use math to create artificial worlds which can only be explored by the equivalent of physics experiments. Once you’ve set up such a world, exploring it doesn’t feel like math anymore – it feels like science. (But call it whatever you want.)
Then I guess we can toss out the 6 million uses of the phrase “math and science”, since it’s obviously redundant. Even more important to science than mathematics is spelling and grammar. Without those none of the papers would be readable.
To use the incinerator, you’ll have to stand in line behind the guy who is busy tossing out all the instances of “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist.”
I agree with your position on science, but it is hard to use English consistently.
For example:
In this very recent blog posting: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=54343 you said “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn what scientists have to say about human spaceflight policy. ”
But, since we want everyone to strive to be a scientist every day, you probably do give a damn about what some scientists have to say about any given topic, including human spaceflight.
Try reading the rant I linked in a comment below, as it might give you a feel for part of the beef we might express from time to time about “sciency” types who write the conclusions before conducting the research, if they conduct any competent research at all.
For example, what better way to put harder numbers on the radiation and isolation risks in long duration human spaceflight than to send humans on long duration missions? In the post Rand made about the scientists advising NASA, one might think they’re doing everything in their power to remain ignorant, and they confidently predict that their ignorance will remain intact for quite some time, which is not at all surprising.
When Gagarin and Shepherd were launched, scientists didn’t know if humans could even survive and function in space, or what the health effects would be. They didn’t advise abandoning the manned space programs until a committee of no-nothings reached a meaningless, uninformed (by experimental results) consensus, they launched men into space to find out what the risks and problems really were.
What are the health risks of sending three people to Mars, assuming an added 3% lifetime cancer risk? A 9% chance that the American population will have one additional case of cancer. Heck, I’ve upped the nation’s cancer risk more than that just providing smokes and dip to friends and neighbors. I think the nation can deal with it.
And here’s another example from JC’s Week in Review, about an Ivy League statistician shredding the NASA Goddard “science” paper that said we all have to turn socialist right-now or civilization will collapse. As he points out, they took some predator-prey formulas and then just randomly said that X was evil-mean people and Y was progressive people and Z was economic output, or some such thing, as if the relation between a formula’s variables and what they represent in the real world is completely arbitrary, based on personal feelings and maybe a weird dream about Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy. To old-school folks it has no relation to science at all, but to post-modern progressives it passes for cutting-edge research.
No,really, there are some topics (e.g., popular culture) about which I am completely indifferent to what scientists say, unless they’ve demonstrated themselves in the past to have something useful to say about it. Human spaceflight policy is one of them.
I thought you were saying that anyone who uses the process of science is a scientist, as opposed to only people who have a certain kind of formal education or who have been hired for a certain kind of job.
I don’t know how anyone could formulate an interesting human spaceflight policy without thinking scientifically or otherwise using the process of science. I readily acknowledge your point that traditional space science fields like, say , planetary geology or astrobiology might be irrelevant to you, but I think the only kind of policy debates you will find interesting will still depend on people using scientific reasoning to come to their conclusions.
I don’t think I’m making an interesting point about space policy or about science. I was simply making a nit-picky point about your use of the word “scientist”, which I thought might be helpful to you if you are going to write a newspaper piece.
I thought you were saying that anyone who uses the process of science is a scientist, as opposed to only people who have a certain kind of formal education or who have been hired for a certain kind of job.
The media doesn’t use that definition. And it’s not hard to get someone who uses the process of science in an unrelated field (and hence qualifies as “scientist” by Rand’s meaning) to give an uninformed opinion.
I don’t know how anyone could formulate an interesting human spaceflight policy without thinking scientifically or otherwise using the process of science.
There is “interesting” as in “this could work” and “interesting” as in a wreck you can’t turn your eyes from. Some people thought they could get into space by committing mass suicide when a particular large comet passed by (the theory was that the UFO hiding in the comet’s tail would pick them up). Those people weren’t thinking scientifically.
BTW, among the many gems in Judith Curry’s “Week in review” post this weekend was a link to this righteous rant about the politicization of science, starting with Carl Sagan mythologizing it and leading to the new iteration of “Cosmos.”
What a lovely example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Good one. Recognizing the form of the specific fallacy can make quick work of it.
No true Scotsman ever uses that fallacy.
Just because someone uses the scientific method, and so might be considered a good scientist in one area, doesn’t mean they can’t be moved by personal opinions in another area into betraying their professional selves into perverting or abandoning the scientific approach.
I’m figuratively biting my tongue here about Professor Hockey Stick.
Heh, I had in mind the legions of geologists who consider themselves expert in radiation physics.
Geologists are where it’s at when it comes to in-situ indigenous rad shielding technologies.
As opposed to guys who count tree rings for a living?
What is a scientist?
Anyone who uses the scientific method (make a specific falsifiable claim and put it to the test against reality). Under this definition that was used for the past 2,500 years, the Mythbusters crew would be scientists, as well as everyone else who practiced the scientific method prior to the establishment of Pax Americana in 1945 AD.
What is a Scientist?
A person who received a title of nobility from Washington, DC and its vassals that makes him a member of an elite priesthood. This is the case since at least 1945 AD.
Plenty of scientists make no claims at all.. we’re not all physicists or chemists.
Then they are not scientists according to the definition used by Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, the Medieval Period, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and Industrial Civilization prior to WWI-WWII.
But their titles of nobility (degrees) make them Scientists (note the capital “S”) by Washington, DC’s definition since it is Washington, DC that bestows accreditation authority to the accreditation organizations.
Moldbug describes this phenomenon here.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22.html?m=1
Scroll a bit down when he starts to talk about AGW.
Okay, go back into your little self-described universe. Don’t listen to an actual scientist or anything.
I infer that you regard yourself as one of the datalogger scientists. I call BS. You’re putting forward hypotheses and testing them. It’s just that your hypotheses are about the equipment and techniques you use to gather data, not the data you’ve gathered as a commodity. You might not be writing it up in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but doing a more immediate practical science – tracing a hardware bug, looking for ways the equipment itself can introduce measurement error along with mitigation techniques, determining whether anomalies are caused by the equipment or something in the nearby environment along the line of sight, etc.
Well, not everyone who’s in a scientific field with a scientific degree is actually “doing science” as the term would be known. Charles Darwin in later life wrote a paper about the survival of birds on his land during a particularly harsh winter. The data was actually gathered by his butler (or valet, manservant, footman, or whatever) who went out and collected the dead birds. Does being employed in a scientific pursuit make one a practicing scientist, even if one has a degree in a scientific field and in possession of a good understanding of science? The new warmist mantra is that it doesn’t if you hold the wrong thoughts.
I used to work at a sports-science lab and did data collection and analysis. These days I could also apply sophisticated analysis methods in pursuit of sports science, and I could get those statistics from Charles Barkley. Does that make him a scientist? He’s gathering the data for my analysis, so I guess it does, putting him in the same league as Isaac Newton and everyone who frets over baseball stats. Needless to say, their statistical rigor would put Michael Mann to shame, but then his skills couldn’t hold a candle to Jerry Sandusky’s.
Perhaps scientist is a term like “logical badass”, the set of which can expand and contract based on what qualities you’re looking for. Science pulls from many other abilities. Language conveys it (including spelling, grammar, and punctuation). The visual arts add more, with graphs, charts, and illustrations of dinosaurs and butterflies. since verbal descriptions would be sadly lacking.
Yet all our most advanced skills with language, art, and mathematics could just as well be devoted to unlocking the secrets prophesies contained in the book of Daniel, or analyzing and conveying the greatness of [insert your sports team here].
The fact that the warmists are even trying to claim that someone isn’t a “true scientist” is evidence that they don’t have a clue about science, what it is, or how it works. What they’re trying to do is defrock priests who aren’t toeing the line on church dogma.
Actually, I claim myself as one of the applied-sciences scientists, but I also fall out of the regular Internet-philosopher’s definition because there aint a damn thing about “the natural world” that I study.
Even so, the fact remains that a hell of a lot more famous and respected scientists than me are excluded from the definitions banded about by clueless Internet-o-philes who wouldn’t know a scientist if he punched ’em in the face, which is usually what happens when they try this shit around practicing scientists.
I think the term has more room for self-identification – and not, and I think that shows up in warmist polls about “scientists.” Lots of people in industry who are actively doing science wouldn’t primarily identify themselves as scientists, preferring terms like metallurgists, semiconductor physicists, researchers, supersonic combustion engineers, and what have you.
Yet probably half the people who work at a university would self-identify as “scientist” at the drop of a hat. I assume the self-identification as scientist varies from field to field and country to country, as would the proclivity to say this person or that person is a scientist or not. I would guess that leftists and progressives are much more likely to self-identify as a scientist, not because they’re doing anything different from conservatives who don’t, but because they’ve been indoctrinated into thinking that “scientist” means something akin to “Christian” or “smart person”.
Even so, the fact remains that a hell of a lot more famous and respected scientists than me are excluded from the definitions banded about by clueless Internet-o-philes…
Ha ha! Darn that internet thingy that makes history books written prior to Pax Americana… available to read!
Okay, go back into your little self-described universe. Don’t listen to an actual scientist or anything.
Yup, ignore all that history written before 1945AD… You should read that link I gave you, its intro is deliberately designed to filter out UpWorthy types.
Anyway, what makes you an “actual scientist”?
The State certifies Engineers and who is one. I am unaware of the State certifying Scientists.
The State certifies Engineers and who is one. I am unaware of the State certifying Scientists.
The State shouldn’t be in the business of certifying scientists and yet, there are are people insisting that the only people who should be called “actual scientists” are those who received titles from the State.
Basically, it means the answer to the question is to be a Scientist, you simply need a business card.
To think, all that money I spent on College when all I needed was Kinkos.
Does being a Christian Scientist count?
What about a Scientologist? They are Scimiticifical! That would make Tom Cruise a Scientist.
If Social Scientists can call themselves Scientists, just about anything that metabolizes can do likewise.
Welcome to ‘credentialism gone wild’…
We give you real scientist parading in no clothes.
“Scientist” isn’t a credential, Anyone can be a scientist. The guys at M5 are special-effects experts, but when they’re doing the show Mythbusters they’re scientists. That’s because they’re trying to falsify theories. They’re actively trying to find new ways for duct tape to fail,
“Scientist” isn’t a credential, Anyone can be a scientist.
Exactly. But they still demand to see your papers!
Unlike an Engineer, it is not a credential.
There is a necessity with doing it with an Engineer. You don’t want just anyone designing the Bridge you drive over of the Brakes you brake with or someone who doesn’t understand the concept of a “Safety Factor” or materials compatibility designing your Rocketship or Plane. Although SpaceX could have used somebody with that knowledge before the 1st Falcon 1 attempt. That was an expensive lesson in galvanic corrosion…..all for the want of a nail…er….nut with proper corrosion properties……..
Nobody needs credentials. Credentials are how some evaluate others. That’s all.
You can be anything without credentials. Some make that illegal but that’s a different issue.