I came to this sciforums expecting something quite different. It seems like there aren't any actual scientists here, nor science students even. The chemistry section is dead and most the other places don't seen to have many either. I still like these boards more than most others I have found of late, but still think it's a shame it's not more technical. I don't want it to read like boards like white paper or journal articles, thats for research not enjoyment. More like dumbed down science you read for entertainment in publications like new scientist. Anyway back to topic in hand, where are the scientists? Are there any here, has there ever been any here? If not then why? I need answers. Thats my hypothesis and it needs testing so scientists please come forward.
i used to be science student but i was far to awesome for them so they kicked me out after 3 years,or i graduated...i forget,i was pretty stoned. studied astrophysics
I'm a science student. Neurobiology if you want to call that a science. Doesn't really seem like it sometimes though.
BenTheMan and I are both postgrad physicists, doing string theory. He did a chemistry degree. I did a mathematics degree. We both did masters concentrating on field theory.
Post-Grad Marine Biology or "Biology-Lite" as I call it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
really Vega... wow... so many have so many dark secrets Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey, everyone's a scientist. Even people who have never seen a lab (or a television set) are scientists. Our ancient forbears were scientists; the first Pithecines to use stone tools were scientists (of the Stone Age, but guess what, it takes a bit of experimenting to make a good hand axe out of a stone). Any modern-day neolithic types still living in the jungle have a fairly organised and complex science - materials, botanics, animal products, and so on. Hunting, which is something we've been doing as a species for a fair while, is a science. Anthropology qualifies too. Most of us are anthropologists (if we're at all interested in other human beings, some of us might not be - interested that is), although some of us don't know how to spell it. P.S. I have a first degree and an ongoing interest, as well as "some" experience in the field - that's the computer field.
I'm a science, or atleast, physics student. Alphanumeric hasn't even recieved his PhD, so i guess he is only an amature scientist, like me... and yes AN... how does it feel, someone going about, bragging about nothing and everything?
I guess non of you post in politics and religion then hehehehe. It seems strange the way politics, religion ans social boards followed by the comp and tech get all the action and really flourish whilst the core science boards seem dead in comparison. So ironic, I am new so maybe it's just a phase or that time of year or something. Good to see there are science orientated people here. I don't care much for the qualification or education side more about the interest side. Whether someone has a ton of masters, phd and even a professorship if they post interesting things about science they are equal to an unqualified person who posts equal content, or less if they are a bore. This is obviously what affects the board the most and intellectual masturbation doesn't do anything but generate pride. Interesting discussions about science related topics, now thats what I want to see. Yeah I see a few but still the non science sections get the action. It's time to take the power back, it's darwinian evo at it's basic level. People interested in science beat the sociologists and philosophers airy fairy nonsense hands down and it's time for them to make way for the new breed. Note: It's just curiosity really, I am not really here to digitally pummel non science opponents into submission. Although if I had the skills I would Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There used to be a lot more here with good backgrounds in Science & Mathematics. Some of the heavey weights have deserted this forum for a physics forum which seems to have a lot of top level people. There are still enough to keep it interesting. Some of the major crackpots have not posted in the past year or so, but there are still a lot of them. BTW: Without specifying a name, there is at least one poster here who claims to be physics student, but some of his posts make me wonder. I suppose you can pass some physics courses without understaning it.
Hmm. Your argument has merit. But still I regard science since the Enlightenment as qualitatively different from the scholarship that came before it. The scientific method brought order to it, with its requirements of empirical evidence, logical reasoning, experimentation, the Rule of Laplace, peer review and all the rest. So for the purposes of this forum, as a moderator, I define "scientist" as anyone who in good faith practices the scientific method, whether it's in discussions of chemistry and physics or music and dating. By this definition I'm an amateur linguist and linguistics is a "soft" science, so I'm an amateur scientist. I'm also a former future scientist, having spent three years at Caltech which 45 years ago was equivalent to about five years at many universities today, what with their classes in remedial English and their average graduates who read at what we called the sixth-grade level. Still, I think Creepto is asking for professional scientists who make a career of it. Apparently we have quite a few. You have to distinguish between a technology and a science. Hunting, especially in the stone age, was more of a craft than an engineering discipline, much less a science. Just like computer programming is today, still a medieval guild craft even though we glorify ourselves with the unearned title of "software engineer." Anthropology is indeed a "soft" science, but in order to qualify as an anthropologist rather than an anthropology wannabe or an anthropology groupie, one must approach anthropology using the scientific method. Not everyone does that, to put it mildly. Most of our members are very young, the average age might be around seventeen. So they spend a lot of time with their lab coats off, pursuing many other passionate interests. Everyone is welcome to post here. My own rule for moderating is: The scientific must be respected at all times, or at least not flouted except in jest. The only exceptions are the Religion subforum and the ones on Crackpottery. This can be a place of science without every discussion having to be about fractals or mitochrondrial DNA because the scientific method can be applied to every discussion and it is sure to enrich it. Sam has not found this thread yet but she is a serious scientist. Well then it's everyone's job to peer-review his posts and make sure he is being true to the scientific method. This is exceptionally important if his posts are under Physics but still necessary if they're under World Events.
Hmm. Your argument has merit. But still I regard science since the Enlightenment as qualitatively different from the scholarship that came before it. The scientific method brought order to it, with its requirements of empirical evidence, logical reasoning, experimentation, the Rule of Laplace, peer review and all the rest. So for the purposes of this forum, as a moderator, I define "scientist" as anyone who in good faith practices the scientific method, whether it's in discussions of chemistry and physics or music and dating. By this definition I'm an amateur linguist and linguistics is a "soft" science, so I'm an amateur scientist. I'm also a former future scientist, having spent three years at Caltech which 45 years ago was equivalent to about five years at many universities today, what with their classes in remedial English and their average graduates who read at what we called the sixth-grade level. Still, I think Creepto is asking for professional scientists who make a career of it. Apparently we have quite a few. You have to distinguish between a technology and a science. Hunting, especially in the stone age, was more of a craft than an engineering discipline, much less a science. Just like computer programming is today, still a medieval guild craft even though we glorify ourselves with the unearned title of "software engineer." Anthropology is indeed a "soft" science, but in order to qualify as an anthropologist rather than an anthropology wannabe or an anthropology groupie, one must approach anthropology using the scientific method. Not everyone does that, to put it mildly. Most of our members are very young, the average age might be around seventeen. So they spend a lot of time with their lab coats off, pursuing many other passionate interests. Everyone is welcome to post here. My own rule for moderating is: The scientific must be respected at all times, or at least not flouted except in jest. The only exceptions are the Religion subforum and the ones on Crackpottery. This can be a place of science without every discussion having to be about fractals or mitochrondrial DNA because the scientific method can be applied to every discussion and it is sure to enrich it. Sam has not found this thread yet but she is a career scientist. I think we have a few other members in the medical sciences. Well then it's everyone's job to peer-review his posts and make sure he is being true to the scientific method. This is exceptionally important if his posts are under Physics but still necessary if they're under World Events.
