I know I'm not. Are you?

Yep.

Watchoo want?

Mad or sane?

What does ``Actual Scientist'' mean? My signature under my avatar used to say ``Actual physicist''. I have publications, so maybe that qualifies me?

what's a scientist?

Generally, an impoverished postdoc.

Well, that's not me yet (or maybe ever).

You'll have to be satisfied with an impoverished grad student.

what's a scientist?One of the fundamental principles of science is peer review. So I guess as good a definition of "scientist" as any would be a person who is acknowledged as a scientist by the scientific community.

So let's see, that probably requires:An education in science or at least a science Active work in science or a science, either as a scholar, a professional (one who is paid for it), or an amateur (although that's probably not what you're looking for tonight) Adherence to the scientific method, which includes theories that can be disproven, Occam's razor, and peer review, among other things And I would add that you have to have enough aptitude for it to get it right at least some of the time, just wearing a lab coat and mixing chemicals that burn off your moustache isn't good enough :)

Yes, of course, Fraggle Rocker, science IS a popularity contest and it is perfectly acceptable for peer review to be exercised by groups of so-called scientists who have the collective emotional maturity of a not-very-bright five year old.

http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/stupid.gif

No MetaKron, the query concerns whether there are any professional scientists on this site, not disaffected sociopathic conspiracy-theory crackpot nutballs like yourself. Isn't there an 'HIV denial' forum you can go to and make an ass of yourself there instead?


With respect to the original question, I believe I qualify as a professional scientist - two completed postdocs, now project leader in a government scientific department.

Yes, of course, Fraggle Rocker, science IS a popularity contest and it is perfectly acceptable for peer review to be exercised by groups of so-called scientists who have the collective emotional maturity of a not-very-bright five year old.


You "nailed it" again, MetaKron. :bravo:
And let's not forget that many scientists have vested, emotional bonds to the results that they "impartially" design.

Of course the peer review mantra justifies them in their minds ...

http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/stupid.gif

No MetaKron, the query concerns whether there are any professional scientists on this site, not disaffected sociopathic conspiracy-theory crackpot nutballs like yourself. Isn't there an 'HIV denial' forum you can go to and make an ass of yourself there instead?


With respect to the original question, I believe I qualify as a professional scientist - two completed postdocs, now project leader in a government scientific department.

That explains a lot right there.

You "nailed it" again, MetaKron. :bravo:
And let's not forget that many scientists have vested, emotional bonds to the results that they "impartially" design.

Of course the peer review mantra justifies them in their minds ...

And a lot of these "people" are aware of how thoroughly their "science" has been debunked and they keep right on doing it because they have "authority" and lots of money.

And a lot of these "people" are aware of how thoroughly their "science" has been debunked and they keep right on doing it because they have "authority" and lots of money.

Sure, there are some bad scientists and some are outright frauds, too. But they are very much in the minority. (Most true scientists simply spend their lives working and you never even hear about them.)

And just because there are a few rotten apples in the bunch, it's very stupid to go and cut down the whole orchard - which seems to be your agenda.

Sure, there are some bad scientists and some are outright frauds, too. But they are very much in the minority. (Most true scientists simply spend their lives working and you never even hear about them.)

And just because there are a few rotten apples in the bunch, it's very stupid to go and cut down the whole orchard - which seems to be your agenda.

Read-Only, on purpose, with malice aforethought, but "consciously" is debatable, you gave yourself a real uphill battle when it comes to convincing me that you are anything but one of the bad apples. You did in fact give yourself the appearance of the worst of the worst.

And a lot of these "people" are aware of how thoroughly their "science" has been debunked and they keep right on doing it because they have "authority" and lots of money.

...Happeh?

We lean, too.

Read-Only, on purpose, with malice aforethought, but "consciously" is debatable, you gave yourself a real uphill battle when it comes to convincing me that you are anything but one of the bad apples. You did in fact give yourself the appearance of the worst of the worst.

Oh? And how was that? Because I called your hand on some of the foolish ideas you've presented here? Or what?

Oh? And how was that? Because I called your hand on some of the foolish ideas you've presented here? Or what?

Because you acted like a two-year-old and you STILL equate that with some kind of beginning of some kind of rational discussion.

:crazy:

Because you acted like a two-year-old and you STILL equate that with some kind of beginning of some kind of rational discussion.

Eh, what?!?!? :bugeye:

As u can see they's all runned off. :(

We 'asn't!

We's just 'idin, like.

pff. I mean propa scientists, with wild, snow white barnets and bubbling green liquids in test-tubes and neglected, not-very-faithful, beautiful wives and e=mc2 and "by jove, I've got it!!! excuse me, my flower, I must rush forthwith to the laboratory - please wait here and attend to the needs of our handsome plumber..", ie not u, ur wife probly doesn't sleep around much, I expect (sorry if she does).

I know I'm not. Are you?


I used to work for a bunch of scientists in a support role, and studied physics at University myself, although I never published, but have been mentioned in publications.

I'm now in the private sector.

As a purveyor of the sciences, including technological/natural/physical/mechanical/electro-magnetic/applied-chemical,

there's a lot to offer in these fields. As general rule goes, to say one is a scientist in an official capacity tends to equate with R&D. Where you physically locate in a lab and monkey around all day to come up with newer forms of usable ideas.

I don't do that, but I do like to study on materials, just for the sake of figuring something out. I enjoy the degrees of freedom it gives my mind, so that I might understand why if the Proverbial Tree in the Forrest falls, yes it indeed does give vibrational energies in the form where there is echo location.

It's nice to see that some actual scientist (even grad students) are on this site to take issue with some of the non-sense the rest of us may be saying.

It's nice to see that some actual scientist (even grad students) are on this site to take issue with some of the non-sense the rest of us may be saying.

But if they were capable of original work they wouldn't have to occupy themselves that way.

How would you know what original work we are or aren't doing?

How would you know what original work we are or aren't doing?

I get a lot of clues from the way that you talk.

How about the way that I lean? That speakin to ya?

Seriously, are you nuts?

How about the way that I lean? That speakin to ya?

Seriously, are you nuts?

Pretty much what I expected.

It's like pissin' in the wind, Geoff...

It smells like pissin' in the wind.

Yeah, on this dialog, I've noted with the advent of readily available routines within the digital data realm; far too many prefer to wind their careers through the Patent Office.

They lurk over others, and grab at the pool of data, and scream and holler it's their's until someone picks up that they're feisty and could turn a profit.

This is all too common and has skewed research funding to the point of mandated security. Where anywhere from 10-20% of funds from grants goes into liability of protection from fraud. This is sad.

If you want to see some heat, in the District of Columbia, spend awhile in the Office of Patents. Often seen to go to blows by people standing out side when some succitement builds.

The best definition of "science" that I have seen recently was an offhanded one in a discussion of dark energy, in Parade magazine, of all places.What excites me personally is how the discovery of Dark Energy illustrates that science is not a set of beliefs that one constructs. Instead, scientists observe nature, then develop theories that describe their observations. Science is driven by nature itself, and nature gives us no choice. It is what it is.

As new facts emerge, scientific theories can be proved wrong or in need of modification, but scientists cannot ignore them. Eventually the facts will lead to the right theory.The essence of science is openness to new observations of reality, even if they conflict with established theories... no, make that especially if they conflict with established theories, because that makes science exciting. No scientist regretted the observation of relativistic effects just because it made some wrinkles in Newtonian physics. No scientist boycotted the findings of DNA research just because it required rewriting the theory of evolution. And no scientist shouts down lectures on dark matter just because it blows holes in what little we thought we knew about the origin of the universe.

The mission of the scientist is to look for truths and then figure out how they all fit together into a coherent universe. A true scientist may feel emotional attachment to a theory he helped develop, but when that theory is proven to be wrong or in need of enhancement, his emotion does not outweigh his commitment to the scientific method.

This stands in stark opposition to the people we charitably call Fringe "Scientists." They are not looking for truth in nature. They come to their calling with a belief, often rooted in an irrational philosphy like religion, and their life's work is to search for observations that support it, and to attempt to discredit observations already logged that do not support it.

So... the problem with science in America today is the same problem that affects every other sector of our culture: the recentralization of power in an overblown government and in huge corporations. When "scientific" research is funded by a pharmaceutical company trying to increase its market share, or by a government department trying to justify its nine-figure budget, the goal of finding and observing nature's little truths is compromised by the goal of coming to a desired conclusion.

That is the antithesis of science. It is no more "science" than the Evolution Denialists sifting through observed data and choosing for display only the bits that support the conclusion they already believe. The devil is in the details and many of the people who work on corporate and government projects are true scientists at heart, who thought they were getting exciting jobs, and only discover the antiscientific bias when they attempt to publish some inconvenient little natural truth that conflicts with the corporate or bureaucratic goal. Their stories of disillusionment and defection are legion, but there's always a younger and more naive new scientist--or simply a less capable and less honorable one--to take over their work.

This is one of the many hallmarks of the Paradigm Shift we have the pleasure of living through. As the Industrial Era economy gives way to the Information Age, the institutions that supported the advance of civilization for the past few centuries have outlived their usefulness--including the too-big-for-its-britches government and its nouvelle aristocracie: the megacorporation. These outdated institutions will not go down without a struggle and they're doing a lot of damage while struggling... but they will go down, just as the Holy Roman Church, the British Empire and Stalinist Communism went down when their turns came.

Science will survive and be stronger. So if you want to make some useful criticisms of the scientific establishment, enough of this sophomoric name-calling about immaturity--which I admit is entertainingly ironic. Participate in the crusade to rescue science from the indentured scientists of big business and big government, not from the straw man of "immature" scientists.

Peer review works, and it is the mechanism that is still valiantly protecting science from a complete takeover by the Forces of Darkness that include not only Megacorporations and Big Brother, but also "junk science" like the so-called Young Earth theory.

Science is not a "popularity contest." Scientists do not judge each other based on whether they like the scientists or the theories they develop. Their judgment is based strictly on whether those theories were developed in accordance with the scientific method. In most cases reviewing a scientist's methodology is qualitatively simpler than doing the original research, and that is the key to keeping science clean. There may be only one person bright enough to develop an arcane new theory and it may take him decades, but in all but a very few cases there will be a thousand people capable of checking his work and they can do it in a few months.

Fraggle, I can see you don't actually work in science or research. :)

Yes, of course, Fraggle Rocker, science IS a popularity contest and it is perfectly acceptable for peer review to be exercised by groups of so-called scientists who have the collective emotional maturity of a not-very-bright five year old.

Let me guess - you couldn't get your "alternative" theory on some subject or other published.

Fraggle, I can see you don't actually work in science or research.I haven't in quite a while but I studied and worked at Caltech. Although I was in math and engineering, neither of which can properly be called "science," by my own definition.

And the point of your inscrutable remark is...? Tell me about how it all has changed in the past 45 years so I wouldn't recognize it today. And when you're finished, try to convince me that this isn't due to the government and the corporations commandeering the entire sector, which we already saw coming 45 years ago.

I haven't in quite a while but I studied and worked at Caltech. Although I was in math and engineering, neither of which can properly be called "science," by my own definition.

And the point of your inscrutable remark is...? Tell me about how it all has changed in the past 45 years so I wouldn't recognize it today. And when you're finished, try to convince me that this isn't due to the government and the corporations commandeering the entire sector, which we already saw coming 45 years ago.

Too depressing. And yes, a lot of it is due to government and corporate commandeering, but its only sustained because so many scientists play ball with them.

I'm the son of a scientist, and I worked in his lab for two years, does that count? I was an art major, though.

I haven't in quite a while but I studied and worked at Caltech. Although I was in math and engineering, neither of which can properly be called "science," by my own definition.

Very new here, but I'm a grad student at Caltech if that counts. Nice handle

...I once mixed milk and pepsi together...that's kinda sciencey. Does that count? :)

But if they were capable of original work they wouldn't have to occupy themselves that way.Perhaps, but most of them would take their turn at it anyway. Don't forget that peer review is a fundamental step in the Scientific Method which requires a significant portion of the world's scientific effort. Not just reading the papers submitted for publication in scientific journals, but examining physical evidence, checking through original recordings, repeating steps in the project, reviewing logic.

Another fundamental principle is that a theory can never be proven but only disproven. So if a dozen peers find no flaw in the theory and only one does, it is disproven--or at least ready for someone else to peer-review the peer review and double-check that scientist's work. Therefore it behooves us to throw a fair number of bodies into the peer review step of a project--especially one that falls under yet another principle: Extraordinary Assertions Require Extraordinary Substantiation.

We need all those scientists who spend their time reviewing. Perhaps you're right and some of them don't have the creativity to do original research but they have the patience, eye for detail, and levels of decomposition to spot weaknesses in other people's work. In that case I'd say we're blessed.

I'm reminded of my own field, software development. Most I.T. shops have a staff of programmers debugging production software, fully half the number of the ones building new stuff. Troubleshooting is an honored skill and there are a lot of brilliant programmers who just love doing it. In fact, as I have posted in several other threads, considering the state of the art in software, we need even more people engaged in debugging, especially during the final testing phases before the product is delivered to the long-suffering end user.

Science has its specialties and it's perfectly fine that one of them is peer reviewing itself!Too depressing.Perhaps you will be heartened by a nice illustration of the power of science. Never forget that in an entire civilization filled with proto-scientists who were willing to "play ball" to avoid being called blasphemers... we only needed a single Galileo.And yes, a lot of it is due to government and corporate commandeering, but its only sustained because so many scientists play ball with them.That's an issue that seems to pop up regularly in science. And science proves itself to be so durable that it survives.

The problem that we're seeing in science today in America is that in the peer review process the government and the corporations are taking over the role of the Inquisitors. Scientists are no longer burned at the stake, but heresy is punished by dismissal in a sector where non-corporate, non-government jobs are hard to get. Fortunately we still have our heroes who speak out anyway.I'm the son of a scientist, and I worked in his lab for two years, does that count? I was an art major, though.Only if you wore a lab coat or burned off your eyebrows at least once. :)

*Ahem*
Labcoats are wayyyyyyy overrated.

Perhaps, but most of them would take their turn at it anyway. Don't forget that peer review is a fundamental step in the Scientific Method which requires a significant portion of the world's scientific effort. Not just reading the papers submitted for publication in scientific journals, but examining physical evidence, checking through original recordings, repeating steps in the project, reviewing logic.

If by that you mean starting pissing contests on electronic forums, humiliating people by feeding false information about science and about their victims, and getting the moderator to kick them off the boards...

Well, i'm a science undergrade but not on a practical level by experiments. The only experiments we do are in school labs, which are pretty much what some other army of scientists have done before and passed down to us to repeat. In fact it shouldn't even be called experiments but exercise. If you are looking for an original scientist with loads of experience, projects, and experiment, look for the high priest of Yuma- BillyT.

If by that you mean starting pissing contests on electronic forums, humiliating people by feeding false information about science and about their victims, and getting the moderator to kick them off the boards...If you really think that you are this generation's Galileo, with the original research to upset the foundations of science (which btw are built much more soundly since Galileo), then hang in there. History and science are on your side.

Whether you are or not, in science the odds are always stacked in favor of the truth coming out eventually.

You can hardly use SciForms as a model of the world's science community. Too many trolls, not enough actual scientists, and the vast majority of members range from only being interested in science but not having a lot of background in it... to less than that. The few of us who keep this place running can't possibly do proper peer reviews and the average member--who is in high school--is even less qualified and/or interested. We can take comfort in the fact that no one is going to announce a scientific breakthrough HERE and do our best to filter the woo-woo out of the tertiary and quaternary research that trickles down to us.

There is hardly a shortage in today's America of places that will happily publish woo-woo so it's not like we're actually putting the faith healers and Evolution Denialists out of business in case one of them discovers that the world actually is flat.

“ Originally Posted by MetaKron
If by that you mean starting pissing contests on electronic forums, humiliating people by feeding false information about science and about their victims, and getting the moderator to kick them off the boards... "




If you really think that you are this generation's Galileo, with the original research to upset the foundations of science (which btw are built much more soundly since Galileo), then hang in there. History and science are on your side.

Whether you are or not, in science the odds are always stacked in favor of the truth coming out eventually.

You can hardly use SciForms as a model of the world's science community. Too many trolls, not enough actual scientists, and the vast majority of members range from only being interested in science but not having a lot of background in it... to less than that. The few of us who keep this place running can't possibly do proper peer reviews and the average member--who is in high school--is even less qualified and/or interested. We can take comfort in the fact that no one is going to announce a scientific breakthrough HERE and do our best to filter the woo-woo out of the tertiary and quaternary research that trickles down to us.

There is hardly a shortage in today's America of places that will happily publish woo-woo so it's not like we're actually putting the faith healers and Evolution Denialists out of business in case one of them discovers that the world actually is flat.

I love it!! And the fact that it's in response to the one who ranted on and on about there being no connection between the AIDS virus and HIV. And yet, here he is complaining about those who "...humiliating people by feeding false information about science and about their victims..."

That's just TOO perfect to pass up!!!!! LOL!!!! :D :D :D

I love it!! And the fact that it's in response to the one who ranted on and on about there being no connection between the AIDS virus and HIV. And yet, here he is complaining about those who "...humiliating people by feeding false information about science and about their victims..."

That's just TOO perfect to pass up!!!!! LOL!!!!

You are definitely NOT an actual scientist. :puke:

“ Originally Posted by MetaKron
If by that you mean starting pissing contests on electronic forums, humiliating people by feeding false information about science and about their victims, and getting the moderator to kick them off the boards... " I love it!! And the fact that it's in response to the one who ranted on and on about there being no connection between the AIDS virus and HIV. And yet, here he is complaining about those who "...humiliating people by feeding false information about science and about their victims..." That's just TOO perfect to pass up!One of the things that constantly frustrates me is that a moderator can't give people infractions for posting junk science. :) We may not be scientists but we have to behave like scientists. We have to treat every assertion fairly and refute it.

One of the things that constantly frustrates me is that a moderator can't give people infractions for posting junk science. :) We may not be scientists but we have to behave like scientists. We have to treat every assertion fairly and refute it.

Let me know when your gang is up to it.

You are definitely NOT an actual scientist. :puke:

Give it up, Happeh.

Happeh is a compulsive masturbator. I am not.

Suuuure you aren't. Now wipe off your screen and go pay your taxes, citizen.

There is no law that requires me to pay taxes, sheep.

And there we are.

Man, this thread degraded into general antipathy between posters. To get back to the original question, does R&D engineer count?

To get back to the original question, does R&D engineer count?Earlier on this thread, or perhaps on another one, someone pointed out that although even top scientists can get away with having no talent for engineering, a good engineer has to be at least part scientist. So I go back to my original answer:1. Active work in science or a science, either as a scholar, a professional (one who is paid for it), or an amateur.I suppose we can add "engineer" to that list, as long as she's doing active work in science.2. Adherence to the scientific method, which includes theories that can be disproven, Occam's razor, and peer review, among other things.This is probably where the good engineers come in. Good engineers are happy to have a flawed theory disproven, they love to start by testing simple answers, and they review each other's work. Another principle of science is to start with empirical observations, and they do that too.3. You have to have enough aptitude for it to get it right at least some of the time, just wearing a lab coat and mixing chemicals that burn off your moustache isn't good enough.Scientists might argue that the standards for entering the engineering profession aren't as high as those for science. But the basic premise holds true that no matter how dearly an engineer believes in the scientific method, he still has to have enough brains and education to not be wrong all the time.

So I don't see any reason that an R&D engineer should not be counted as a scientist, so long as he satisfies the above criteria.

i am a rocket scientist. i built the hubble single handed, while i was on the toilet.

peace.

Fraggle rocker

Thanks!!

Well, I have a master degree in physics, got two papers published, got a job as an R&D engineer in a high tech company so I think I may some scientific credentials, at least to a small extent. I am a major in surface and solid state physics, so nothing fancy.

Well, I have a master degree in physics, got two papers published, got a job as an R&D engineer in a high tech company so I think I may some scientific credentials, at least to a small extent. I am a major in surface and solid state physics, so nothing fancy.You have more scientific credentials than most engineers--and even a few scientists. Except maybe chemical engineers, they have the hardest course load. I think the fact that you actually perform research pretty well nails it. Some people who have the job title "engineer" are really only technicians.

And then there are my people, the "software engineers." Few of them have even studied engineering at all, much less science. And it really shows in the state of the art in this field. This ain't engineering. At its best it's a medieval guild craft, and at its worst it's voodoo. No civil engineer, even in Roman times, would deliver a product with as high a defect rate as Windows.

There is no law that requires me to pay taxes, sheep.

Right. I can see you now at the checkout counter, "Hey, take this stupid slaes tax off my total - there's no law that says I have to pay it!" Or trying to avoid the taxes when it's time to renew your vehicle's license. Or refusing to pay the tax part of your utility bills...

Yeah, right! :bugeye:

You are definitely NOT an actual scientist. :puke:

Really???? Jealously will gain you nothing. I suppose you can handle doing HPLC/GC like I used to do every single day, right?

Retired cell biologist.

Really???? Jealously will gain you nothing. I suppose you can handle doing HPLC/GC like I used to do every single day, right?

Fatty acids?

Depends on the columns. The real nasty things are Nano-LCs though. You spend half the time (or more) to find why the lousy thing ain't running.

I'm not a scientist, I'm merely a philosopher.

I hate how the term philosopher is viewed in today's society. The early greek philosophers' is what I see has a true philosopher. Someone that queston's reality and asks why? and goes on to try and figure out the why's to his own questions.

I hate how the term philosopher is viewed in today's society.How is that? I'm not sure I know. I don't see the word used very often except to refer to the "classical" philosophers, from the ancient Greeks up through people like Kant.

How is that? I'm not sure I know. I don't see the word used very often except to refer to the "classical" philosophers, from the ancient Greeks up through people like Kant.

It seems people now days use it as a term that refers more into spirituality and religion. The purpose of life and why we are here.

It seems people now days use it ["philosopher"] as a term that refers more into spirituality and religion. The purpose of life and why we are here.That's just because we're currently enduring an era of woo-woo, at least in America. Those are certainly legitimate topics of philosophy, since spirituality is an instinct and religion is something we males have constructed around that instinct so we'd never have to say "I don't know." But any field of study certainly loses its depth when it reverts so exclusively to the realm of instinct.

I'm not a scientist, i'm an artist.

I'm not a scientist, i'm an artist.That's cool. We are trying to solidify SciForums' identity as a place for scientists. But it's also obviously a place for people who are interested in science, or who simply appreciate the application of the principles of science to things outside the normal realm of the scientist.