Bad science?

... is what you are really talking about. It is really business interests controlling the invesitigation and disclosure of science that is the problem.But you are right. Bad science is the result.
And it is a serious source of concern in many forms of science.
Even the science I work in (entomology).
It can get very frustrating for many scientists trying to get a pure research position in the public sector - it's just so difficult - and many necessarily take jobs in the private sector where they are essentially forced to tow the company line and makes sure that, no matter what, the company looks good at the end of the day.
I almost gave in to temption of a 'full benefits' private industry job myself when I was a post-doc, but I am glad I toughed it out. I just could never accept having to get the approval of some damned nitwit adminstrator before publishing my work.Even now, ocassionally we test new insecticide products for companies like Dow and FMC. We give them a straight down assessment of their products back-to-back with others and with a control in return for some token funding. I know that they will only use the results IF their product looks good in the trial, but what can I do? They are paying for the research - I can't tell them what to do with the results they've paid for.

quote:

---

Same thing about Christianity.

---

Oh? Where is this list of specific requirements of who is and who is not considered a Christian that is agreed upon by all Christians?But anyway, you are not comparing like things.Science and Scientists are different things.Science is the body of knowledge, and it is also the specific methodology used by scientists to discover that knowledge. There are very specific criterion, generally agreed upon by all scientists, which are written down and anyone can understand and use them to determine if something is scientific or not.If some person is a scientist or not is a completely different question, and a bit muddier than the one above.What makes a person a scientist, I think, is that they use the scientific method properly in their work, and if their main occupation is developing and testing theory.

quote:

---

But what it comes down too is that if you say your a christian, then you are one.

---

Right.But remember that you responded to a comment about what can be called science, not scientists.

quote:

---

Of you say you are a scientist, then you are one. You may not be a good one, but you are one, according to the fallacy.

---

No, I think that calling oneself a scientist requires more. It is a highly skilled profession requiring a decade or more of training and higher education, after all.Do you think that one can become a police officer, or a surgeon, or an engineer just by deciding you are one?Following a religion has nothing at all to do with learning any skill or technique or knowledge. It is a philosophical/emotional thing only.

I agree with this much. I do not agree with the rest. To me, being a scientist merely requires following the scientific method. It's an approach one takes in observing the world, making hypotheses about one's observations, and testing those hypotheses. More training and more education certainly improves one's ability to do those things, but it's not necessary. Follow the right approach and you are a scientist.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I think your definition is a little too broad.
You are saying that use of the scientific approach, by itself, makes you a scientist. I think that most career scientists (like myself) would like to see some measurement of accomplishment attached to the designation. A true scientist is measured by his record of peer-reviewed publications. At least, if anyone asked me to justify my claim to being a scientist, that is what I would point to first. That, and the citation rate of my articles.So just because you can think like a scientist and understand the application of the scientific method is not enough. You have to actually create some new knowledge and have it validated (or at leaste vetted) by other scientists before you can consider yourself one of them.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I stand by my definition.Certainly the things that you talk about make one a better scientist. And publication in peer review journals and discovery of new information are things that one can point to as evidence to prove to a third person that one is a scientist. However, I still maintain that the sine qua non of being a scientist is following the scientific method. That is both necessary and sufficient.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I think shraf's definition is too specific. I don't think developing theory should be required to call oneself a scienitist.One of the things I'm working on today is determining how much acid neutralizer is required to neutralize various doses of acidic chemicals. The information will be presented like: if you've got a dose of X acid chemical, you'll need to add Y of the acid neutralizer. I'm not developing any new theory or anything, but I am doing science. And I'm getting paid to do it. For this reason, I call myself a scienitist. This seems a litle too braod in my opinion because you can follow the scienitific method in your everyday life to figure little things out. Like, the little bit of algebra I use in the supermarket to find the best price on a food item doesn't make me a mathematician, 'naw-mean?

What would you call a person who uses the scientific method properly in their work but isn't developing and testing theory?I think your definition should be:What makes a person a scientist, I think, is that they use the scientific method properly in their work, and if their main occupation is developing and testing theory.That's about how I define it.

I think you have a good point, CS.
My criteria are perhaps also too restrictive because I was desribing the operation of 'pure science' as it would apply to researchers.You have a job in 'applied science' - you utilize scientific principles to solve problems in your profession, principles that you necessarily must have a good understanding of. That entitles you to be called a scientist.But a scientist is someone who uses science to accomplish or produce something. You can't just think about science idly and, convinced of your understanding of it, consider yourself a scientist.

quote:

---

Certainly the things that you talk about make one a better scientist. And publication in peer review journals and discovery of new information are things that one can point to as evidence to prove to a third person that one is a scientist. However, I still maintain that the sine qua non of being a scientist is following the scientific method. That is both necessary and sufficient.

---

If I play basketball under the official rules, does that mean that I can be considered a basketball player in the same way that Michael Jordan is considered a basketball player, only that he is better than me?

quote:

---

What would you call a person who uses the scientific method properly in their work but isn't developing and testing theory?

---

Maybe a skilled experimenter, or technician?

Interesting. If I'm following you, are you saying anyone who works in a scientific discipline outside of academia or a pure research position is not entitled to be called a scientist? Not that I personally give a hoot, but I have a number of colleagues who would likely disagree with this characterization. Assuming that's what you meant, of course.

"Crashfrog". No, really, that's almost exactly what I do for the USDA. My job title is "Biological Research Aid."So, maybe you'd call them an "aid"? Or "assistant"?

Well, I've never heard of a 'skilled experimenter' and I don't think there's any jobs out there with that title. Sounds like you just made up a term, but I did ask what would you call it, so thats cool.In my experience, a technician would be someone who prepares the samples for testing and does instrument upkeep and "the dishes". But I guess since I do all of that too, I could be considered a technician with additional responsibilities, i.e. actually performing the experiments. But, usually, the tech is there to help out but not really do the actual work.

Yeah, I think we agree. It just comes down to how loose you want to define a scienitist. Agreed.WRT it being a profession. If you get paid to do it then your a professional. I get paid to do science. I call myself a scientist. I think adding in the part about developing theory is not defining the word loose enough to include everyone who, IMO, should be called a scientist.

Are you reporting your results to someone else who is analyzing them?If so, then I can see how you are aiding them.At my job, I don't have anyone above me to report the results too and I don't have anyone aiding me, though sometimes I wish I did. We have a couple chemists here doing formulation work 'n-stuff. But I work in the technical service department and most of the experiments I do are from questions that customers are asking. So, its up to me to design the experiment, obtain the results, and report them to the customer. If we were a bigger company, my job might be done by three people, if there was an aid or a tech in the lab.