[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 126 KB, 2200x2272, whaop.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3234626 No.3234626 [Reply] [Original]

>people that think a bachelors in anything is enough to qualify as a scientist

>> No.3234643

nothing is enough these days

>> No.3234656

Master's in Engineering qualifies myself as a scientist

>> No.3234658

>>3234656
A gay scientist maybe.

>> No.3234663

>>3234626

my guess is OP doens't even have a bachelors yet

>> No.3234674
File: 16 KB, 320x240, 1276036109735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3234674

Hell, I don't even know what a bachelors is. My soon-to-be degree translates/corresponds to Master of Science in Applied Physics and Mathematics

>> No.3234676

A scientist is someone who uses the scientific method.

>> No.3234679

>>3234676

Yes, just like an F1-driver is someone who drives an automobile

>> No.3234680

What about a failed pure math PhD, failed for the reason of being too damn lazy to get anything significant done for 5 years.

>> No.3234678

>>3234676
Indeed I've worked in research for 10 years I've written 4 publications and I don't have a degree in anything. 3 crappy a levels and a fuck load of O levels

>> No.3234682

>>3234676

Yeah but thats a vague description for what scientist are these days, a scientist is basically a researcher with a good load of background formation

>> No.3234684

>>3234678

> 4 publications

Cake recipes, maybe.

>> No.3234686
File: 109 KB, 580x362, 911stillhappened.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3234686

>>3234680
Still more of a scientist than any of us will dream to be.

>> No.3234689

>>3234684
actually no
>>Clinical and experimental immunology
>>Clinical immunology

>> No.3234691

>>3234678
10 years and only 4 publications? Where are you working?

>> No.3234692

I'm a civil engineer, i don't consider myself a scientist. I did my master thesis but after that it comes down to business and going for profit.

>> No.3234693

>>3234686

Thanks :3

Makes me feel a bit better about seeing a guy I used to tutor when he was a first year undergrad now holding the position of Associate fucking Lecturer at the department while I'm sitting on 4chan all day with nothing to show for years of pottering around with mathematical physics.

>> No.3234696

>>3234689

>>Clinical immunology

Haha! That's great sweetheart ;)

>> No.3234711

>>3234691
you'll find I only have 4 publications because I only started publishing around 5 years ago. But worked as a lab tech for the previous 5. All I'm saying is it is possible to be a scientist offer more to science than I would bet everyone in this thread and not have a degree

>> No.3234732

>>3234711
Meh, as a lab tech myself, I figure you might be a bit like me. A person who works UNDER a lot of people with big fancy degrees and yet common sense seems to elude them as we run test-beds that I already could tell them the result of due to how many we have ran.

However if you talk to those people with the big fancy degrees, you'll find out that they already anticipate the standard results, they look for the exception to the rule. A lazy lab tech *ahem* my co-workers *ahem* can spoil the research by not being attentive to details.

>> No.3234744

>>3234732
completely agree, I find the post grads and even some post docs I work with to be the most retarded people I have ever met. Their complete lack of general knowledge or life in general just pisses me off.

>> No.3234746
File: 27 KB, 526x482, 1297432501877.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3234746

>people think that degrees make scientist

>> No.3234753

>>3234744
You haven't read the second half of the post, have you?

>> No.3234766

>>3234744

Way to misread his post dingus. He was saying that the scientists are way ahead of the lab rats, and that their so called "common sense" has already been thought of and accounted for by the men with degrees.

>> No.3234769

>>3234766
>>3234753

No i read it, I just don't happen to agree so didn't press it any further. I think some of the better prof. sure but a generic PA fuck no

>> No.3234771

>>3234693

>5 years

sorry mate, but really, you are a fucking failure.

remember that adage? 99% perspiration?

As smart as you are; you're not worth any more than you apply yourself.

I'm surprised it took failing a phd for you to start learning that

>> No.3234774
File: 36 KB, 174x239, reaction dwarf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3234774

>>3234769
>>3234744

>I completely agree
>I just don't happen to agree

>> No.3234775

>>3234744
>>3234769

>I'm jelly of people smarter than me

>> No.3234884

>>3234771

Oh, don't worry, I've learned that I need to apply myself if I'm going to get anywhere.

That's why I'm on here all the time.

>> No.3234904

this thread

perfect example of the dunning-kruger effect

>> No.3235123

>A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

>no mention of a requirement of having at least 12 PHDs

How does this make you feel?

>> No.3235134

>>3235123
you can call yourself a scientist any time you like but no ones going to believe you unless you can prove it with publicly recognised qualifications

>> No.3235137

>>3235123
>How does this make you feel?
Like I have experiments to carry out now.

>> No.3235139

You can get a university-level education at a public library. Your Master's degree means that you can pay attention for a long time. Good job. It does not mean you're a scientist, and it doesn't mean you're not. It's just a piece of paper.

>> No.3235142
File: 67 KB, 411x334, 1248868687499.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3235142

>>3235134
>giving a shit what other people **think**
I hope you don't think you're a scientist with that attitude.

>> No.3235147

>>3235142
Good luck doing experimental particle physics in your garage.

>> No.3235152

>>3235147
Because science is limited to experimental particle physics. That is absolutely the only science ever.

Look up a guy named "Michael Faraday"

>> No.3235154

>>3235152
Because according to your post no scientist would ever be concerned about what others think about him. That's obviously wrong.

>> No.3235163

Undergrad here. Sometimes I wonder whether it's really worth studying all these years, but then again I notice again and again how much there is that I've yet to learn. Looking forward to writing my bachelor's thesis next year and then go for a master.

>> No.3235186

>>3235154
Uh, exactly? If a person is truly objective, methodical and, you know, SCIENTIFIC, then personal bias shouldn't factor into it.

>> No.3235191

>>3235142
>implying you can avoid giving a shit what others think.

>> No.3235200

>>3235191
>implying you should give a shit what others think

>> No.3235206

>>3235186
What's the connection between caring what others think and objectivity? Do you imply that thinking about others' opinion would automatically lead me to forging data?

>> No.3235212

>>3235200

Everyone cares. Do you stick your finger in your ass and smell it in public? Yeah no.

>> No.3235218

>>3235212
So what you're saying is that you want to stick your fingers in your ass and smell them.

>> No.3235226

>>3235218

I admit it was a bad analogy. But my point is that everyone seeks others approval when doing something, even the slightlest, we have this thing called pride.

>> No.3235231

>>3235218
missing the point.

you have to care what others think. you should because you're not alone in this world

in4 we reach the solipsistic point in conversation (babby's first philosophy)

>> No.3235233

>>3235226

This. Funny how everyone always says 'lol i dun car wut ppl think lol' when everyone clearly does.

>> No.3235241

>>3234904
> Exactly

>> No.3235259

>>3235206
>>3235212
Okay, that's all super dandy and everything, but the point is that one shouldn't care what others' opinions are when collecting data
>>3235226
You wouldn't really know, would you?

>> No.3235261

>>3235226
>>3235231
>>3235233

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/

That shit right there is why you're wrong, many of our greatest scientists were in opposition to their peers.

>> No.3235264

ITT: Butthurt people who convinced themselves hard that other people's perception and opinions doesn't matter. I'd hate to break it to you guys, it fucking does matter, science still fucking works best in a community where peer-reviews are being held.

>> No.3235269

>>3235264
>I'd hate to break it to you guys, it fucking does matter,
[citation needed]

see
>>3235261

>> No.3235271

>>3235259

No. The original point was about
>>3235134
and your(?) reply
>>3235142
I waws arguing only about that, not objectivity when collecting data (which is in my opinion a good thing).

>> No.3235274

>>3235152

sorry bro, but we're sorta past the point where you can make groundbreaking discoveries with a fistful of resistors and off-casts from radioshack.

If you think a master's degree is just a case of

"lol, git reedin boi, 'A's for everyone!" you're a little mistaken.

>> No.3235276

>>3235269
Means that every scientist that goes in opposition makes great discoveries?

>> No.3235293

>>3235274
If we're talking about theoretical physics, one (in principle, I don't have any examples right now) can make not groundbreaking, but still pretty important discoveries without any equipment at all.
Even I was able to publish a paper a year or so ago, when all I used was a notebook and C++ compiler.

>> No.3235301

>>3235276
Means that opposition does not imply falsehood, particularly in the arena of opinions.

>> No.3235313

>>3235301
I didn't imply that either, I just said that considering the opinions and views of others is the best way to do science. Especially since scientists aren't all Einsteins.

>> No.3235316

>>3235293

>'all I used was a notepad and a c++ compiler'

>implying you did not have a university education in the matter

I'm sure the discovery institute is grateful for your contributions towards intelligent design

>> No.3235324

>>3235316
What do you mean? Yes, I have a university education. All I wanted to say is that in some cases equipment doesn't mater (of course, in other cases equipement is so expensive that several countries have to chip in).

>> No.3235328

>>3235293

>theoretical physics
>made some shit up

grats bro, did the high school newspaper that published it pay you at all?

>> No.3235331

>>3235313
>I just said that considering the opinions ... of others is the best way to do science.

Does that include new earth creationists?

>> No.3235334

>>3235331
>Implying that's science at all.

>> No.3235344

>>3235328
Hm. I didn't suspect that scientific journals can pay you for your article.
Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly when I was talking about the publication. I wasn't the only author, of course there were also a couple of professors. But the only equipment used was a notebook.
As for grants, this waork I've done for free (after all, exprience and publication cost much more than several thousand dollars).

>> No.3235356

>>3235324

In which case you're missing out the most important equipment of all

YOUR EDUCATION.

Daily interactions with professors who lead the field and correct your bad habits before they take root are alone invaluable; let alone the coaching in your methods, the contacts you develop, and all the other unseen benefits like access to journals that doesn't cost you $30 a pop.

IT is *possible* to educate yourself in a field by only reading books- but it is extremely difficult without people to correct your errors, prevent you from skimming over concepts you don't like or initially find unintuitive, and generally keep you on the straight and narrow.

What I'm saying is that the most undervalued and essential tool required to do science is a GOOD education.

It doesn't matter how methodical you are if you think everything is made of earth, air, fire and water.

>> No.3235367

>>3235334
>implying I was calling it science

The point ultimately is that just because a group (largely the people on here but I'm sure people in academia as well) has arbitrarily decided that one needs to have a piece of paper proving they know their shit (which can be flubbed) in order to be called a 'scientist' in an effort to make themselves feel more important doesn't make it true.

Scientist by definition refers to one who follows the methodology of science. Not one who flubbed their way through Uni. Not one who revolutionized a field with a major breakthrough. End of discussion.

>> No.3235386

>>3235356
Hm. Maybe you're right. It didn't occur to me to think of an education as an equipment (perhaps because I got it for free).
Although I should mention that I'm a physicist and no one tought me programming (except a couple of university courses that really didn't give me any new knowldege). So I'm not sure which part of my education I should attribute unviersity.

>> No.3235401

In my eyes you become a scientist when you contribute something no one has before. Until then you're just a nerd.

>> No.3235412

>>3235386

bitch please.

I'm a applied physicist and I've spent the last two years of my life developing laser systems.

I had one programming class for FORTRAN- pretty basic stuff. Before then my programming experience was nil.

my first job I had to develop software in c++ to control some optics.

Just because you didn't know how to program brilliantly doesn't mean that you didn't benefit from your physics classes, the supervisor who pointed out mistakes in your code and the group that submitted the publication.

These are ALL things that your education equips you with, to say nothing of your state of mind.

I already wrote a list.

ps I didn't pay for my university education either- but I still value the shit out of it.