Replies

> Are you, Coyoteman, a scientist?

Yes. (Ph.D.)

You know, come to think of it, my paster got his Ph.D. a couple years ago. Is he a scientist, then? [grin]

But what about Michael Faraday? Was he a scientist? Albert Einstein? Was he a scientist? Before or after he graduated with a degree in physics? Or maybe he pursued scientific study because he was a scientist. Was Nikola Tesla a scientist? How about Thomas Edison? Charles Darwin?
(These aren't rhetorical - I honestly want to know how you answer them. They are pretty simple :-)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the mere fact that one has a Ph.D doesn't prove that they are a scientist. And it sure looks to me like there have been some great scientists without Ph.D.'s. (I grew up reading Tesla's own writings (which weren't as nearly as mystical and fruity as other people's writings about him)

Thus I would still like to know what determines whether one is a scientist. Could it be that a scientist is somebody who performs scientific experiments and follows the scientific method -- regardless of whether they have a Ph.D and regardless of their belief of the process which brought about our existence, as long as they don't falsely assert a faith to be a fact, or a belief to be knowledge?

Do you think, based on what I've told you about myself, that I am a scientist? I have no degrees whatsoever, but I have a fascination with science and have done many scientific experiments, and yearn to learn and study.
(Probably the most shocking experiment I ever did was the day I learned by experimentation that flames conduct high voltage, and not to play the propane blowtorch flame on the screens inside an operating buglight zapper. I was however delighted with the discovery, but of course later found that it was common knowledge.)

It's only fair that if one states that they are a scientist and another is not, that they also explain how they came to that conclusion. Words without definitions have no meaning. (And using meaningless words to dis someone isn't very nice.)

Who else is qualified? Are we going to let creationists, many of whom are avowed enemies of science, come up with the definitions? Many of them, including many on this website, would rather see most sciences gutted because science doesn't agree with, or confirm, their particular religious beliefs.

I don't think it's quite correct to say that many creationists are avowed enemies of science that would rather see most sciences gutted. Here's why:

There are a lot of other sciences then just those related to the origins of matter and life. Math, Chemistry, Computer Science, Biology, Geology (as in what rocks are made of, the empirical stuff), Electronics (Is that even a science?) Optics, physics -- all of these sciences work perfectly fine, can be studied, tested, and utilized regardless the past. I think creationists more tend to just disbelieve the conclusions that the earth is old, generally citing lack of sufficient evidence and evidence against. At least is that my view.

Look at the AIG statement of faith I posted above. Folks who accept such a priori conditions have no business telling scientists how to conduct science.

I don't know why you keep talking about faith when I want to talk about science :-)

But now that we're talking about faith, the AiG statement of faith mostly agrees with the Bible. And as I mentioned before, I believe the Bible to be true. And by the way, my observation has been that those who subscribe to the bigbang+goo to you by way of the zoo also have an unwritten set of prior ideas which they use in the same way as AiG's statement of faith -- to discard evidences on the mere fact that they don't agree with "established science." Everybody has a faith on the topic, one way or the other. Everybody starts someplace.

But once I get an idea of exactly how you determine who is a scientist and not a scientist, then I'll be better able to understand who should be allowed to determine what is science.

Thanks,

-Jesse