Guest [fill in the blank] by David Middleton
Am I really a scientist?
BY NESSA CARSON 15 AUGUST 2019Whether in a lab, an office or on a stage, we are no strangers to wrestling with self-identity
Citizen science projects are a high-impact way to engage people with real, scientific research. Anecdotally, untrained participants are not only lucky enough to learn about and contribute to science, but also experience increased feelings of confidence and empowerment, as well as feelings that science is ‘for them’.
It’s frustrating that despite citizen scientists making leaps and bounds in their scientific self-confidence, this is still one of the factors that new researchers at the start of their formal scientific journeys struggle with most. This particularly goes for students and researchers from minority and non-traditional backgrounds, who sometimes feel like they don’t fit into the monolithic lab environment. Many report either deliberate or unintentional exclusion leading them to experience the converse of the citizen scientists: decreased sense of belonging, and intrusive thoughts of not truly being a scientist, regardless of ability and expertise.
Looking wider and more objectively than this impostor syndrome, the idea of who is and isn’t a scientist is a constant source of argument.Positions range from the hyper-inclusive ‘all children are naturally scientists’, to ‘the word scientist (or something nominally similar) must be in your job title to be considered one’. Some students claim that they can’t be scientists yet – they have to get a job first – even if their work bears many similarities to an employed postdoc or industry researcher. My friends who have left bench science for editorial or science communication positions are sometimes the most conflicted. After dedicating years to meticulous training in research, they have left the lab, while still using many of their honed research skills every day. I can’t offer any advice beyond that if they want to be called a scientist, they’ve certainly earned it. How people perceive themselves has powerful effects on confidence and personality, and using one neat, descriptive word greatly simplifies the thinking.
[…]
I certainly identify as a scientist, and that’s partly because I also identify as a nerd. But I don’t end up feeling pigeonholed. I work in a very diverse role – some days I now wonder whether I’m actually an engineer, or a seriously untrained computer scientist.
[…]
Ultimately, the debate over who can call themselves a scientist pops up every couple of years, and with no clear-cut definition of who is and isn’t, it’s essentially moot and irrelevant. The results we accomplish are more important. What matters is when we identify ourselves as scientists in public, where listeners may not know any scientists. We end up representing scientists as a whole, whether we would like to or not.
Since a large proportion of people expect scientists to always be old, white men with wild hair, perhaps more of us who don’t fit that profile should proudly identify as scientists wherever we can!
Chemistry World
If you have to ask, the answer is: No.
You might be a scientist…
- If you have a college level degree in a science.
- If you are professionally employed as a scientist.
While it’s certainly possible that people with no scientific education or professional experience are capable of achieving Einstein-ian scientific prowess, are they scientists? Let’s ask the National Science Board:
Chapter 3. Science and Engineering Labor Force
Definition of the S&E Workforce
Because there is no standard definition of S&E workers, this section presents multiple categorizations for measuring the size of the S&E workforce.[i] In general, this section defines the S&E workforce to include people who either work in S&E occupations or hold S&E degrees. However, the application of S&E knowledge and skills is not limited to jobs classified as S&E; the number of workers reporting that their jobs require at least a bachelor’s degree level of knowledge in one or more S&E fields exceeds the number of jobs in the economy with a formal S&E label. Therefore, this section also presents data on the use of S&E technical expertise on the job to provide an estimate of the S&E workforce. The estimated number of scientists and engineers varies based on the criteria applied to define the S&E workforce.U.S. federal occupation data classify workers by the activities or tasks they primarily perform in their jobs. The NSF and Census Bureau occupational data in this chapter come from federal statistical surveys in which individuals or household members provide information about job titles and work activities. This information is used to classify jobs into standard occupational categories based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system.[ii] In contrast, the BLS-administered OES survey relies on employers to classify their workers using SOC definitions. Differences between employer- and individual-provided information can affect the content of occupational data.
NSF has developed a widely used set of SOC categories that it calls S&E occupations. Very broadly, these occupations include life scientists, computer and mathematical scientists, physical scientists, social scientists, and engineers. NSF also includes postsecondary teachers of these fields in S&E occupations. A second category of occupations, S&E-related occupations, includes health-related occupations, S&E managers, S&E technicians and technologists, architects, actuaries, S&E precollege teachers, and postsecondary teachers in S&E-related fields. The S&E occupations are generally assumed to require at least a bachelor’s degree level of education in an S&E field. The vast majority of S&E-related occupations also require S&E knowledge or training, but an S&E bachelor’s degree may not be a required credential for employment in some of these occupations. Examples include health technicians and computer network managers. Other occupations, although classified as non-S&E occupations, may include individuals who use S&E technical expertise in their work. Examples include technical writers who edit scientific publications and salespeople who sell specialized research equipment to chemists and biologists. The NSF occupational classification of S&E, S&E-related, and non-S&E occupations appears in Table 3-2 along with the NSF educational classification of S&E, S&E-related, and non-S&E degree fields.
National Science Board
Clear as mud! Let’s look at Table 3-2…
Was that better?
It may be easier just to identify who isn’t a scientist. I’m fairly certain that none of these people are scientists:
They’d probably be shocked to learn that this is a science:
Since its founding in 1917, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has been a pillar of the worldwide scientific community. The original purpose of AAPG, to foster scientific research, to advance the science of geology, to promote technology, and to inspire high professional conduct, still guides the Association today.
[…]
The purposes of this Association are to:
*advance the science of geology, especially as it relates to petroleum, natural gas, other subsurface fluids, and mineral resources;
*to promote the technology of exploring for, finding, and producing these materials in an economically and environmentally sound manner;
*to foster the spirit of scientific research throughout its membership;
to disseminate information relating to the geology and the associated technology of petroleum, natural gas, other subsurface fluids, and mineral resources;*to inspire and maintain a high standard of professional conduct on the part of its members;
*to provide the public with means to recognize adequately trained and professionally responsible geologists; and
*to advance the professional well-being of its members.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
AAPG must have failed on this one: “to provide the public with means to recognize adequately trained and professionally responsible geologists.” My experience is that “the public” generally lacks the means to differentiate Bill Nye from a scientist, much less “recognize adequately trained and professionally responsible geologists”.
“Are you a scientist?”
It should be a simple question to answer but scientists are genuinely uncomfortable taking credit for the title. Their response is usually some form of “I’m not a real scientist…” followed by an unnecessarily precise job description that serves to disqualify their niche of expertise. This is understood as professional humility amongst peers but sounds oddly evasive and confusing to non-scientists. Nowhere else do people so vehemently deny the categorical hierarchy of their pursuits.
“What do you do?”
Science Riot
I don’t have any discomfort about answering these questions:
“Are you a scientist?” Yes.
“What do you do?” I’m a geologist.
Although, this is often followed up by:
“What’s a geologist?” It’s actually very difficult to explain what a geologist is when the person asking the question doesn’t know what geology is. Back when my business card said “geophysicist,” I would usually answer, “geologist,” because explaining what a geophysicist does is even more difficult.
I’d bet a good bottle of wine that most of the science marchers in the photo above don’t know that petroleum geology is a science. They probably learned this on TV.
The result of real science
The result of fake science
Reference
Taso, Leon & Weller, Tom. (1986). “Science Made Stupid: How to Discomprehend the World around Us”. Leonardo. 19. 263. 10.2307/1578252.
Science Made Stupid: How to Discomprehend the World Around Us is a 1985 book written and illustrated by Tom Weller. The winner of the 1986 Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book, it is a parody of a junior high or high school-level science textbook. Though now out of print, high-resolution scans are available online, as well as an abridged transcription, both of which have been endorsed by Weller [1]. Highlights of the book include a satirical account of the creationism vs. evolution debate and Weller’s drawings of fictional prehistoric animals (e.g., the duck-billed mastodon.)
Wikipedia
Thomas Dolby – She Blinded Me With Science from Mad Hatter on Vimeo.
Bill Gates and I are both college drop outs. I would say that Gates’ work would make him a scientist. I am not, but I am capable of reading and understanding the words of scientists such as Dr. Richard Lindzen. A simple look the numbers regarding the make up of the atmosphere tells even a non scientists that CO 2 does not control the climate. So called scientists have created this hoax. And non scientists in politics and the press have spread it as farmers spread you know what.
Then there are the fully degreed and published “scientists “ that have no idea what they are doing or talking about. Then there are the science teachers that fall into the same category. Bad enough that they don’t know what they are talking about, but insist on spreading the gospel to other unsuspecting victims.
Unfortunately, education does not make one a scientist in the true sense. I worked with a Ph.D. Engineer that couldn’t understand simple heat transfer in a flowing system. So simple that a Ph.D. Chemist with no training in flowing systems figured it out in a few minutes. This Ph.D. Engineer was not a scientist, he was an idiot. He was fired by a major oil company within a year. So much for his education, it is pointless educating an idiot.
On another front, a friend of mine didn’t like the rigors of the education system but was otherwise brilliant. He quit school with a AA degree but went on to be the chief designer of machines to manufacture window frames for a major window manufacturer in Iowa.
All this says is that education does not automatically make you smart. You first have to be smart and then learn what you need to excel in this society. The most important think I learned from my education was how little I actually knew about the world and how the real world worked (not the laboratory world that had no direct connection to the real world). So that started a desire to continue a lifetime of learning.
Unfortunately many branches of science fail to connect laboratory and real world issues together. It is the old “In Vivo” and “In Vitro” issue. In my view, Climate Science is 100% In Vitro and they have not learned how to translate lab and computer work into “In Vivo” results.
I’ve sometimes wondered if I should be considered a scientist, engineer, teacher, or middle manager. Those of us who have worked in industry R&D have often worn the hat of each of those.
Educationally, I have degrees in physics and astrophysics. So I meet that ‘requirement’ some have suggested (and I disagree with), but can you call yourself a scientist if you are not actively engaged in research or other ‘sciency stuff’? Is being a scientist a career, training and frame of mind, both, or something else?
You are a scientist in management but you are still a scientist if you ask for data to support a conclusion, evaluate that data to see if it supports what conclusion is propose, and then act on that data. Science is a fact based decision making process.
This is the root cause of so much trouble in the world today. People react on emotion regardless of facts in so many cases. One sees this in Climate Alarmism, Moon Landing Denial, Antafa, Creationism, and any number of social belief systems that are not based on facts.
Damn that Sheldon!
Ever since that episode, my children wet themselves when ever geology is mentioned. I try explain geology is one of the core sciences but they just giggle.
Having trained in South Africa it was made very simple at Uni, to be called a scientist you needed a honours degree (4 yrs) to be formally recognised.
Bill Murray said it best:
https://youtu.be/sEbSABWJiJc
1) OBSERVE – Take a moment and really experience the universe around you. Examine it in detail: smell, taste, touch, listen, see. You current interaction with the universe may not be infallible, but it is the most reliable. Now compare your present experience of the universe with your memory of similar experiences in your past. Your memory of past experiences is less reliable than your present and it is more fallible, but your personal past and present serve as an anchor as you explore the vast, yet even less reliable, and equally fallible experiences of others. If you do this long enough your mind will naturally begin to focus on something in particular about the universe that you find interesting and soon the next step will (almost magically) begin…
2) QUESTION – The part of the universe which has caught your attention now has you asking a question to yourself about it. See how easy that was?
3) DOCUMENT – Record as much of this experience as you can. Pictures, video, audio, sketch a drawing, take notes, collect samples,… Get as much as you can but don’t overwhelm yourself. The information you gather now will help you with the next step.
4) HYPOTHESIZE – You have a question now try to answer it. Take a guess. It is OK if it turns out the answer is wrong that is part of the scientific method so get used to it. In fact, you can be assured that you have a good scientific hypothesis if it has the property known as “falsifiability.” That means that you can state what would be necessary to prove or disprove your hypothesis. A hypothesis which is not falsifiable is not a scientific hypothesis. Sadly, many today want to wrap their ideas up in a cloak of scientific jargon but in the end their hypothesis lacks falsifiability and is therefore not scientific. If you want to you can do research and get input from other people. You may find that you like their answer and choose to use it as your hypothesis. But keep in mind that finding a hypothesis you agree with is no where near the end of the scientific method. I say this because far to many people make it only as far as this step and think they are being scientific. THEY ARE NOT!!!! They are exploring, learning, educating themselves all of which are good things and will help with the next step but to stop here is to fail at science.
5) TEST – Now you need to have a test to either prove or disprove your falsifiable hypothesis. Once again, it is OK to do research and find out if anyone else has done a test of your hypothesis. It may be that a test has already been done which you can duplicate yourself to verify the results. This is the CRITICAL part of the scientific method. If the test you perform cannot be duplicated by others then something is wrong but this will be addressed later so for now just focus on designing and performing a test of your hypothesis. When you perform your test, document, document, document. Record in detail the equipment, materials, steps and results of your test. Do your best to be as accurate as you can.
6) SHARE – Now comes the often uncomfortable but necessary part of the scientific method. You need to share openly and publicly all of the things you have done up to this point. Was your hypothesis proven or dis-proven by your test? Share at least every thing from steps three to five with as many people as you can. It is particularly helpful to share it with people who reject your hypothesis. Listen to their criticisms of your test. Perhaps they can give you insight on how it could be improved. Perhaps you will need to go back to step four and refine your hypothesis. Perhaps you will need to go back to step five and alter the testing procedure. Encourage others to try and duplicate your test and see if they have the same or similar results.
CONCLUSION – So this is all there really is to the scientific method. Anything that does not follow these six steps may claim to be science, but it is not. This is likely to make some people upset because they want to claim they are scientific, but don’t be fooled. If what they present does not follow these six steps it CANNOT be called science. If you disagree with me on this I welcome your input on what needs to be changed.
A scientist is someone who applies the scientific method in specific arenas in their life.
There is no death sentence for those without scientific degrees applying such methods, hence it is important to distinguish between those paid to employ scientific methods and those who do so voluntarily.
Much of ‘science’ now is quite frankly intermeshed with politics and fundraising. How many PhD studentships right now fund projects questioning CAGW or at least attempting to base science on using data sources greater than seventy years old? And how many start from premises not to be questioned because funders demand that it not be questioned?
Here are a few sacred cows not to be questioned:
1. Vaccine adjuvants cause no damage to infants.
2. GMO crops have no major unintended consequences.
3. Carbon Dioxide is the major mediator of global warming.
4. Automation of farming has no downsides to soil ecology.
5. Damming rivers has no environmental downsides.
6. Changing land use has little effect on climate.
7. Mobile communications technology has no effect on human health nor on plant growth.
8. Mind control is a good thing.
9. Knife crime in London is more serious than depleted uranium all over Serbia and Iraq.
10. Developing drugs is more effective than addressing diet, depression and immunosuppression.
You may if you are percipient detect that I have questioned all ten. That makes me a non-violent extremist, as no politician would question them either.
It makes young careers in science much easier for those who are not politically awakened….
Even better is this offering from Sheldon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uovbV7LP3Q
(from a fellow Geophysicist and AAPG member … … … )
Are you a “Scientist” if you do not practice the scientific method? Which is basically to spend all your time and energy attempting to disprove your theory.
I say not. It’s like being Red (blue, green, whatever color), either you are, or you aren’t. Irregardless of what any title says you are.
I do not think how much time one spends doing a particular thing is the deciding factor.
It is the ability to employ the method and abide by the results of experimentation and follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Someone might have a lifetime as a witless muleheaded oaf, but have a shining moment.
Yeah–science is an attitude towards research, driven by curiosity, discipline and integrity.
Honest inquiry.
On another site about older cars–Alfa Romeos–there is a member in his late 70s who has a PhD in physics and has published stuff on the atmosphere of Mars. We have had a thread going on “Warming” since 2008.
Die-hard “warmer”, who had submitted papers to the IPCC. Then, when the IPCC was given a peace prize, he really believed he had a “Nobel”.
When it comes to climate concerns, he has avoided real science.
“ Many [students and researchers from minority and non-traditional backgrounds] report either deliberate or unintentional exclusion leading them to experience the converse of the citizen scientists…”
“Many?” How many among what number, total? How does one establish the factuality of such reports?
In 30 years of academic research experience, I have never seen students and researchers from minority and non-traditional backgrounds intentionally or unintentionally excluded.
Science is ethnicity- and culture-free. Membership is open to the trained. It’s all a matter of how one thinks. You’re a member of that society when you speak the language. When you embrace the rigor, you’re in.
There are no minorities or non-traditionalarians in science. There are scientists and not-scientists. Background doesn’t enter into it. Only ‘frontground’ does: your education, your training, and your commitment to objective knowledge.
Grandmother asks how grandson got on with his exams.
Grandson says I failed them all except sociology.
Grandmother says that’s good, you’ve got an -ology so you’re a scientist.
Many of the most important scientists have not had doctorates in a scientific field, either ever, like Faraday, or, like then patent clerk Einstein, at the time of their greatest achievements.
The self-taught Faraday left what little formal school he had at 14. To honor his discoveries, Oxford awarded him an honorary doctorate in civil law, aged 41.
Copernicus’ doctoral degree was in canon law; Darwin’s bachelor’s (later upgraded to MA) was in divinity. Both men had however also studied medicine, which for Copernicus included astrology and astronomy. Being at Edinburgh and Cambridge did allow Darwin access to prominent naturalists.
Many other such examples could be adduced.
I agree that the definition of a scientist is very close to “one who properly employs the scientific method” and I would add “to understand the natural world” ( see ‘natural philosopher’). The scientific method could also be used, for example, to improve man made objects (engineer). Knowledge and techniques verified by science can be used by technologists to accomplish a variety of tasks such as the development of new medications or electronic devices. IMHO, those types of people are not strictly speaking scientists though they should fully understand the scientific method. The proportion of the population who actually use the scientific method to garner understanding is very small indeed and given that it is very difficult even for people with sciency degrees to adhere to scientific principles, the number of people considered to be scientists should be much, much smaller.
As an engineer I always thought of myself as a quasi-scientist. Our education included a lot of science courses. The profession required an open mind to solve difficult problems.
John Sandhofner
I think that the essential difference between an engineer and a scientist would be that, tasked with designing and building a bridge or a dam, the engineer would design to the accepted specifications of the time — and add in a 20% safety factor. The scientist would look into ways to improve the design, by using new materials, or better understanding how the stresses are distributed, and then handing it off to an engineer to complete the project. The state of the art is improved by scientific research, or learning from failed projects, i.e. the Tacoma Narrows bridge.
I recall that Richard Dawkins wrote about the methods that were used by hunter gatherers to track prey animals. They could look at tracks and piles of poop and could tell all kinds of stuff about what kind of animal had passed by, how long ago and all kinds of other information. He argued that these people where applying scientific methods.
I’m an engineer and I have to use the scientific method to solve problems. I’m not sure if I can claim to be a scientist but if I am wrong I find out straight away when my ideas don’t work. Climate scientists have been getting it wrong for three decades now and are still in employment.
Tony L
On plate tectonics;
A friend completed Geological Engineering in 1962, at the University of Saskatchewan.
That year Dr. John Tuzo Wilson was a speaker on continental drift, which was controversial at the time.
Wilson addressed a large amphitheater and the geology faculty sat in a block at the back.
When his address was finished, they did not ask any questions, but to show their disapproval got up en masse and walked out.
Some “scientists” today are doing the same with Svensmark and Shaviv’s work on cosmic rays and climate change.
Bob Hoye
I attended many talks presented by the Peninsula Geologic Society at Stanford in the 1970s. Typically, it was the older geologists who were slow to accept plate tectonics. However, they played an important role in refining the theory by asking difficult questions based on their years of experience and encyclopedic knowledge. Those who were acolytes of ‘Jesus’ Tuzo Wilson couldn’t get away with hand waving and making unsupportable claims. Without running the gantlet of objections from the senior geologists, plate tectonics would probably not have developed into the robust theory it is today. This is the serious mistake that today’s climatologists are making — not listening and responding to the objections of “skeptics.”
To paraphrase Nietzsche, “That which does not kill a hypothesis (or prospect) makes it stronger.”
David
And the god of oil is not yet dead.
But he does have wicked slider.
Maybe we should next examine the term expert. My dad loved the definition of an expert as a plain ordinary person out of state.
Well according to the Obama Administration .A scientist is some one in a white lab coat.
Does not matter what they style themselves,if they cannot apply the scientific method , they are just an annoyance.
Language corruption is a political strategy,as seen with our “Progressive Comrades” and political parties.
Democrats who despise the constitution and the citizen.
Liberals who are as Statist as they come.
Conservatives who desire more Government.
Just cause a fellow claims to be an expert,does not deny me the right to “see his work”, before he gets a cent out of my pocket.
Science requires a inquiring mind and doubt.
What might you learn if you accept everything as “settled”?
Unfortunately for state funded science,the stench from Climatology will fall over institutional scientists for years.
After the failure of scientists to challenge the outrageous claims of the Cult of Calamitous Climate, why should any taxpayer support the continuation of their departments.
Now sure the problem has always been political,it takes a person of integrity to call BS on their own employer and risk unemployment.
The government promoted meme of Cataclysmic Climate Change has failed,even with the full support of the bureaucrats,media and spineless politicians, this naked grab for power,control and wealth has not been bought by the citizens who have to pay.
Extraordinary claims require evidence.
Convincing emperical measurements are almost required, yet Climatology has none.
If this was science,the speculation that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes run away warming,would be over.
Correlation between CO2 emissions and the terrible metric”Estimated Average Global Temperature” is not there.
Causation?
Pure religion,of the cult like kind.
The null hypothesis with respect to climate,seems to be same old ,same old.
Where fore is the “change”?
Human society seems to go through cycles,at one point the witch doctors, shaman or local smart guy were our only scientists.
And they were always right; “It is the will of GOD/Gods or everything, that such events should come to pass.”
With the scientific method,we briefly shared the faint hope that we might stop fooling ourselves long enough to learn something from past evens.
But as many of us know,belief is so much more comfortable than doubt.
Learning the history of science is a study in humility and, unfortunately, lack of it.
When one looks at a formal description of the scientific method, it ought to be evident that what it is, among other things, is a formalized process for enforcing humility.
When someone is unable to accept that their ideas may be wrong, they are unlikely to learn anything, although others may learn from what they have done wrong or done right.
Someone might do some experiments to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis but, lacking humility, be unable to learn from the resulting data because it does not comport with what that person believes.
And then someone else comes along and reads about this experiment and the results thereof, and immediately sees what the first person missed, then this second person talks about what he has seen and thought to a third person, who then is able to formulate a hypothesis that explains and expands upon this finding, and in the process advances the body of human knowledge.
Now, who is and who is not a scientist in this scenario, which is not unrealistic and was actually how things proceeded in the early days, in at least one specific instance, and perhaps others more recently?
The first and the third persons wrote up what was done. The first was unteachable and unable to accept new information that conflicted with his prior worldview, an learned nothing, and died never thinking anything had been discovered.
The second person saw new information, realized what it meant and the implications in a wider frame of reference, and formulated a new idea.
The third person did not do an original experiment (at that point in time on that specific topic), but took what person 2 had seen and said and wrote it up and disseminated it.
The real world does not pay attention to how people feel about things, and respond appropriately.
And in real life, people take on roles that they were not trained for in a formal way.
And other people who are the beneficiaries of formal training are unable to make use of it.
Science is worthless to them…they decide ahead of time what must be, and are stubborn and lack humility and plasticity of mind.
They may and often do attempt to strongarm reality into conforming with what they have conjured up inside their mind.
We have a lot of that going on nowadays.
I use science every day to make my living.
When I’m arguing with Warmists I often ask them if they can interpret a Psychrometic Chart.
(nope)
After a lengthy explanation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ from a Warmist, I pointed to the large white
object in the corner of his kitchen and asked…
How does a fridge work?
The look he got on his face was priceless!
Well, there are a lot of people who know exactly how a refrigerator works who are not scientists by any reckoning.
And there are scientists (at least one anyway) who have no goshdarn idea what a psychrohoozit is, and would have to look up the word because *ahem* it sounds MADE UP!
https://youtu.be/vprlc6Jcm74
😉
A scientist is not a person who is in possession of a certain set of facts, let alone some particular fact or another.
That is just being knowledgeable.
“Science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists.”
-P.W.Bridgman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Williams_Bridgman
“Scientists are those who do science”
-Unknown, attributed to Alfred E Neuman
Glenn
What else would someone expect from Alfred E. Neuman other than a circular definition?
A scientist is anyone who does science, i. e extends human knowledge by using the scientific method.
Most commonly scientists have academic degrees, but this is definitely not necessary. In many scientific disciplines a large proportion of the practitioners are not academic professionals. Fields like ornithology, botany, astronomy and paleontology are examples of this.
Oddly enough non-professionals seem to be most easily accepted in the “hard” sciences.
Hi TonyL
Why did the geos walk out en masse -Because their head honcho walked out and the young acolytes had to do some serious bum-sucking to keep their jobs or grants. Your Svensmark/Shaviv analpgy is good, I thin.
Wouldnt’it be nice if the young guns in climate science could be free to stay or walk out according to their own volition rather than to appease a grand panjandram. I would hate to be a young post doc stat Penn State and have to oppose the opinion the great Mikie Mann – Distinguished \professor of this or that at that institution
I wonde what a Mediocre Professor looks or sounds like.
I dont disparage the stamp collectingphase of science, and you are right The real glory iw when you can see through the morass of conflicting data and ideas to a greater overarching state of order.
In the end Tycho Brahe stamp collected for Kepler
Your Avogadro moment is probably pivotal. wher do we fnf]d it in Physis
Copernicus Galileo Newton Einstein Schroedinger Heisenberj
A little bit more distinguished than Arrhenius Callendar Ravelle(maybe) Gore Santer Jones Mann Nye Greta Garbage.
Alastair Gray
Excellent threat Cpuld we send it en masse to Skeptical Science
Alastair gray
Interesting, I can’t find any requirements to join the Union of Concerned Scientists.