Talk:Scientist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old Edits

Note: title added by Karol 16:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Title corrected. No need of "untitled"

---

There is no scientist that can know how solar system are formed because this scientist never seen a formation of solar system like dog can never speak ENGLISH scientific method.

--TendarTibet

Tibet's reply

[:[Buddist philosophy]]Buddist philosophy is the main science about mind there are some advantage about physic,chemisty and etc,but buddist philosophy is only one who bring peace or happy. [:[TCV|www.tcvchild.org]]

P.S. do you know a good web site to learn Polish, proscia?

--Tendar (15years)TCV tibetan boy,long live Dalai lama and free Chinese from communist

Mark K's reply

Mathematics is not a science, it does not use the scientific method to verify the truth of its assertions, rather it uses its own methodology (axioms + logic).

On whether science is part of philosophy, I think the philosophers would like to think that is the case, but I think any discipline involving thought could be claimed under one of philosophies broad banners, even perhaps astrology.

Mark K

Jon the Geek's reply

I'd argue that not all science comes about as a consequence of the scientific method. Sometimes its a vision, a jolt of inspiration (perhaps madness), or plain dumb luck (for example, Fleming's mold infested petri dishes that led to penicillin). The value of the scientific method is as a means to validate truth, in a scientific sense. - Dwmyers

If Fleming hadn't validated his finding through the scientific method, we would not know that penicillin is an antiobiotic. Dumb luck and inspiration can produce interesting observations and hypotheses, but scientists still test these hypotheses using the scientific method. Jon the Geek 14:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ivan's Reply

"... and experiments as they are usually conceived are unable to supply mathematical proof" An experiment cannot supply a proof to any (non-trivial) theory. Experiments are used to disprove or confirm (not to prove) a theory. Thus, the stated difference between mathematics and sciences is badly formulated. Rather, a proof in its proper sense is present only in mathematics, not in any science. User:Ivan 07:20, August 12, 2005 (GMT)

Keep category clear

Engineers and Mathematicians are not Scientists. I will let you fight it out about "computer science" vs. "computer engineering". -- Fplay 08:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Can we do away with the huge rant in the middle of the article? It may be correct but it is certainly not NPOV. 210.49.88.162 12:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's growing on the article. I'm moving that content here, by paragraph, because probably some of it could be scrapped for other contexts.

1. In fact, there is a continuum from the most theoretical to the most empirical sciences, with no clear-cut boundaries. It is hubris to insist on re-categorizing mathematics, which plays such a central role in all quantitative reasoning. In terms of personality, interests, training, and professional activity, there is little difference between applied mathematicians and theoretical physicists, and even theoretical engineers like Claude Shannon. There are many notable examples of people who have moved back and forth among these disciplines. Descartes not only invented analytic geometry, but formulated his own theory of mechanics, and advanced ideas about the origins of animal movement and perception, yet is known principally as a philosopher. Newton extended Descartes' mathematics by inventing calculus (as did Leibniz), but is also regarded as the founder of classical mechanics and investigated light and optics. Fourier founded a new branch of mathematics, infinite, periodic series, but studied heat flow and infrared radiation, and discovered the greenhouse effect. Minkowski provided the four-dimensional space-time interpretation for Einstein's special relativity. It would be absurd to deny that the mathematicians von Neumann, Turing, Khinchin, Markov and Wiener made seminal contributions to science, including the theory behind computers and the foundations of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Can you go to bed as a mathematician and wake up as a physicist?

2. If you say that engineers want to know how to solve a problem and implement the solution, you have also just described what most scientists do, though perhaps with different goals. The conventional wisdom is that scientists investigate phenomena, whereas engineers are concerned with solutions to practical problems. But mechanical, electrical, chemical and aerospace engineers are often at the forefront of investigating new phenomena.

3. In general, it can be stated that a scientist builds in order to learn, but an engineer learns in order to build.

4. Another pointless gambit is to insist on a dichotomy between experimental sciences, and purely "observational" sciences such as astronomy, meteorology, oceanography and seismology. But, to comment on only one, astronomers have done basic research in optics, charge-coupled devices, and in recent decades, have sent space probes to other planets, in addition to using the Hubble Telescope. And in almost every field these days, computer modeling is both a mathematical and an experimental venture. Microwave spectroscopy has now identified dozens of organic molecules in interstellar space, requiring laboratory experimentation (and computer simulation) to confirm the observational data, and starting a new branch of chemistry.

5. It may be a somewhat arbitrary decision about who is a scientist. Classification schemes establish categories with paradigms. Semantic distinctions are essential for thought and language, but outside of mathematics, there are seldom well-defined boundaries and disjoint sets. It's easy to recognize a typical blue or green, but pointless to quibble about the exact dividing line.

6. Is an inventor a scientist? Charles Goodyear discovered vulcanization of rubber, but did his lack of training and haphazard work show he wasn't a "real" scientist? Do amazing discoveries suffice to get you into the club? Was Edison a scientist? Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., the American physician, poet and essayist, noted that sepsis in women following childbirth was spread by the hands of doctors and nurses (four years before Semmelweis). Was he a scientist? Suppose a chemist becomes a university president; is he still a scientist?

7. Einstein's first wife, Mileva Marić, may have assisted in his 1905 special theory of relativity. Women are known to have contributed to science since the 19th century, e.g., Ada Lovelace, who worked on Charles Babbage's analytical computing engine, and after whom the Ada programming language is named. From earlier times, there is Hypatia of Alexandria (circa 380-415 AD). There may well have been others; history didn't welcome them. In spite of any (unproven) left-brain/right-brain conjectures, all the women cited here were mathematicians.

8. More substantial questions: Is an historian a scientist? A physician? A psychoanalyst?

Karol 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cajal.gif

I have removed this image from this article as it is marked as 'fair use'. Although the use of this image in the Santiago Ramón y Cajal article may qualify as fair use, I fail to see how its use in this article does. JeremyA 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Salary

What is the approximate average salary of a scientist, and how does it differ amungst different fields.

It varies, according to the length of a piece of rope.

Seriously, it's all over the map. In industry scientists tend to make considerably more than in academia. In biotech, talented and lucky scientists command salaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, plus stock options; in archaeology, salaries are much lower. In the late 20th century it was conventional wisdom that getting a Ph.D. in physics lost you money on average compared to a B.Sc. in the same field, because industrial experience tended to count more than academic experience. Even within a particular field, salaries vary depending on type of position, location in the country, and funding source -- "soft money" positions tend to have slightly higher salaries than pure academic positions, in part because of the higher risk associated with a lifetime of research doled out in 3-5 year chunks.

IMHO, most practicing research scientists appear to be motivated more by love of the research than by money, though both motivations are clearly present to different degrees in different individuals. The skills required to support a soft-money research team are similar to the skills needed for to be a business entrepreneur, so folks who are motivated more by the need to profit tend to leave science and enter industry. As an example: at each stage in my career (I am a solar astrophysicist) I have been offered jobs outside astrophysics with salaries 2x - 3x those available to me within the field. zowie 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Critical View ??

I fully admit that it is difficult to create and maintain an holistic content balance for this intrinsically heterogenic topic, but I also have to say that this is one of the worst things I have ever read in Wikipedia. I consider myself a strong supporter of the idea of moving the notion of Wikipedia in academia from a primary source of scientific investigation to a citable reference. But such a one-sided article which barely mentions anything besides the so-called hard side of science (count the keywords if you like), will undermine its very subject.

I strongly suggest to rethink not only the structure of this article, but to develop a more critical and holistic point of view. If this article is about this profession, starting points can be drawn from the traditional relation between society and science, to shed a light on the different roles a scientist had to play in the past. Concerning the present, it would be interesting, if we could find (in literature) some clusters to categorise what scientist actually do when they make science. Where do they work? How do they communicate? What is it that makes their discourse scientific? Please, let science be more than engineers, physicists and machines! Bakterius 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Who Determines Whom is a "Scientist"?

EDIT: Corrected use of a new talk thread. Remember to put 2 ='s on each side of the title if you want to start a new thread. Thanks How do you determine when a person is worthy to be considered a "Scientist"?

Is it when they earn a Masters degree or a Doctorate, and/or have X years of experience? For example MDs and Attorneys have specific exams they must pass before they can legally practice their professions. This should be considered an important question because the media is constantly referring to quotations and research by "Scientists".

the answer is the term is used subjectively - there is no hard and fast definition and that s not a problem. i d say most people start using it to refer to someone who has reached acclaim in a field or sub-field of the natural sciences and who holds a PhD, and at times in reference to people with acclaim in social science. having acclaim is in turn relative and may be of the local sort (hence one could refer to a 'local scientist'). someone with a master s degree in a scientific field could refer to themselves (somewhat presumptiously) as a scientist, but it s really someone with a PhD, isn t it. -Mayumashu 03:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

In general, I think the term can safely be applied to people who are actively doing research that employs the scientific method. I wouldn't say a PhD is required -- most academics I know wouldn't flinch at having senior PhD grad students doing scientific research called scientists, and a few industrial scientists probably don't have PhDs. And before the 20th century, a lot of scientists didn't get PhDs. However, there is a cultural perception (as the above comments show) that "scientist" is a title to be bestowed rather than a job description. As a result, people in research sometimes feel calling themselves scientists sounds a bit presumptuous. Also, we're trained to be precise, so less ambiguous terms like "molecular biologist", or "inorganic chemist", or "associate professor of computer science" are probably more common among working-stiff scientists. --Misterwindupbird 11:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a scientist is simply someone who practices science. Most scientists would have formal qualifications, not because that is what makes them scientists, but because you generally need those qualifications to practice it. Although it is less common these days with the increasing complexity and cost of science, there are many historical examples of people who have made contributions to science without formal qualifications. For example, amateur astronomers have made large contributions to the field by finding comets and the like. Many great palaeontological finds were made by amateurs (e.g. Mary Anning). Mozzie 05:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Misterwindupbird makes a good point about the cultural perception of what it means to be a scientist. The general consensus among the various dictionaries and other reference sources I consulted is that a scientist is one who is learned in one or more of the sciences. I think most of the public would tend to agree with that definition. So what does it mean to be learned? I think that's where the real problem lies. In my experience, much of the public feels that a person is only learned if they have some sort of official credentials (e.g. a university degree). The thing is, it's quite possible, and by no means uncommon, for an individual to develop a high-level of skill, ability, and experience in the sciences without ever setting foot inside a college classroom. Albert Einstein (whose status as a scientist few would dispute) felt the regimented school environment was in fact quite bad for learning for creativity. Nikola Tesla never completed secondary-school, only making it through one semester of his junior year. Galileo Galilei was also a college dropout. These big names show just how possible it is to become quite learned by simply studying and doing. If they weren't scientists, then I don't know who is. Siggimoo 05:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A few paragraphs down on this page is a very good statement:

In general, it can be stated that a scientist builds in order to learn, but an engineer learns in order to build.

This summarizes my own feelings about science and engineering. They tend to be similar but with different products. Engineering produces tangible or otherwise usable things, whereas science produces knowledge. Thus, a scientist would be a person who works to produce knowledge. Siggimoo 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to whether anyone thinks medical doctors (and other health professionals too I guess) should be included under the banner of scientists? Maybe health scientists? I would tend to think that the health professions are more akin to engineers in the sense that they acquire a broad understanding of many areas of science (anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, psychology, sociology, biochemistry, etc etc albeit not in the detail that a scientist in one given area would know) in order to apply them to the clinical situation and solve clinical problems. In saying that, medicine does not rely solely on scientific knowledge to manage the clinical situation but also on communication and other clinical skills.I guess the question is, should we include people with applied science degrees under the greater banner of scientists? MJ 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of Scientists - The Correct Classification for Geographers

The original edit adding "geographers" to "types of scientists" did so mutually exclusive of social/earth sciences. It has since been moved to social sciences; however, the geographic sciences are rooted heavily in both natural/physical science and social science. Therefore, I vote to move and keep "geographers" separate from either the earth or the social science classifications as this will potentially confuse readers. -Carthaginienses

hi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.151.38 (talk) 21:31, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

@(^^)@ <---monkey!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.177.206 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not abuse the talk system. Thanks -Tom140996

Academics vs scientists

Please see Talk:Academia#Academics_vs_scientists for discussion of category merge proposal.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just removed some vandalism "erin is soooooo sexy", as was to be read on top of the page, isn't really a very scientific text, but could better be interpreted as violence and\or vandalism. Thafadi Adahabou 09:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientists vs lay people

"However, lay people in Western societies have little understanding of the day to day activities of professional scientists and scientists hardly understand lay peoples' needs." The second part hardly seems very precise or correct. What specific needs of lay people would the average scientist not understand?Kenneth Charles (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that complete junk. 129.16.97.227 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Errors

The article claims that philosophers are scientists and that the "first scientist" came about after the Greeks (Aristotle, anyone?). I would think it better to remove the first scientist section because there may be a few different opinions of when science started; for some it was the Muslim man listed, for others it was Aristotle, and for others it was by Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes in the Scientific Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.13.167 (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article's tags

Parts that need additional citations for verification

What part of the article needs reliable references? Please list them in bullet format. J. D. Redding

No response in a week. Removing. J. D. Redding 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Parts that contain original research or unverified claims

What part of the article contain original research or unverified claims? Please list them in bullet format. J. D. Redding No response in a week. Removing. J. D. Redding 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Women in science

There should only be a women in science section if there is also a men in science section also. While some of the content in the section may merit being in article, simple being a woman in science does not make one more noteworthy than being a man in science, and the entire article should refer to scientists as scientists, not distinguish between a male scientist or a female scientist.

I strongly agree with this post. The place for discussing women's contribution to a traditionally male-dominated field in a time where this was not the norm is in an article about feminism/women's rights or similar. Particularly in an article that describes a profession that prides itself on objectivity, it seems patronising to have a separate section for women. Though I'm sure the intentions are good I think this section should be removed and the contributions of the various female scientists should be included throughout the article and the criteria for inclusion should be the same as for male scientists. Also, as the previous post said, scientists should be referred to as scientists and no special gender description is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.91.101 (talk • contribs) scientist also work on other things important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.14.66 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Too many links (EDIT: Moved from top of page and started new thread for it

76.251.68.23 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AAARRRRGGGGG - This page is a link salad. What can be done to reduce the clutter?

I remove the {{overlinked}} template. There are no duplicate or trivial links in this article. And it includes a linked list of scientific disciplines. It is true that there are very many links in this article, but I see no other way. If somebody has a proposal how to reduce the number of internal links, please let's have it, but with the present setup this article is not overly linked. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of our time?

The picture of Albert Einstein says this "The physicist Albert Einstein is probably the most famous scientist of our time." As I understand it, he did his work from the very early to the mid 20th century. His early stuff is around a century old!!! This really isn't our time any more, we've moved on. Anyway, thats just my opinion. -OOPSIE- 03:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha "we've moved on." Who are the we and what do you mean? He still played a big role. POV statement though i'll agree. 72.220.125.54 (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Misusing of refs

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 18 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox for this article is absurd and useless. Let's review all the helpful information it provides:

1. "Names: Scientist" – The name for a scientist is "Scientist". Who would have guessed?
2. "Activity sectors: use of scientific method" – What the heck is an "activity sector"? Whatever it is, "use of the scientific method" certainly isn't an activity sector. A philosophy or technique maybe, but not an activity sector.
3. "Competencies: Science" – Another big surprise. Scientists are competent in science.

I propose that the infobox be removed and replaced with just the photo and caption. Kaldari (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Heresy Section Problems

The key definitions of the section are attributed to Carl Sagan via a citation to an article in a book edited by Goldsmith.

• Carl Sagan said nothing about heresy in the cited paper.
• The Forward, entitled "The Role of the Heretic", on pages 7-15, was written by Isaac Asimov.
• Asimov used the terms endoheresy & exoheresy in the Forward.
• The statements made about both terms in this article are extrapolations of (rather than a summary of) Asimov's comments.
• Other sites attribute the terms to Sagan, citing this article.
• Other sites attribute the terms to Asimov, with quotations from Goldsmith's book.

The "Heretics" section needs work. 159.83.196.1 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.159.83.196.1 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Heretics section should be removed entirely. It's just Asimov's pet term for crackpots. It's not notable enough to take up a huge section of an encyclopedia article, and it especially doesn't belong under the header "Types of scientists"! Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Loners

Loners who waste their life examining poop which is apparently fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.151.23 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate

"Historically women were not encouraged to participate in science but after passing of legislation such as the Equal Rights Amendment the number of women receiving degrees in science has increased."

The implication here is that the Amendment was passed, which it wasn't.Winston S Smith (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it's talking about degrees, is Title IX a better mention than ERA? —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good catch - I deleted the whole sentence. Not only did it give the impression that the ERA had passed, but it didn't represent a worldwide view. The whole section could use some better sourcing, too. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

remove engineers from list

One of the scientific fields of study listed is engineering. I think this should be removed. Engineering is not the same thing as science, as evidenced by numerous sources. This is not to say there isn't overlap, but rather that engineering should not be listed as a scientific career.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Neil Tyson featured in the leading image

I'm half certain that this is a troll edit. Whilst he is indeed a scientist, Tyson is famous as an eminent science communicator. He is not particularly eminent in science, certainly nowhere near any of the other great scientific figures pictured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denziloe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

historical scientists section contradicts Origin section

Corrected so that the profession of scientist is understood to precede the coining of the term in the 1840s; else we have to reject that founding scientists are indeed scientists. Mrdthree (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hindus, Chinese, Persian, Egyptian scientist

How come Hindus, Chinese, Persian, Egyptian scientist or knowledge seeker are not mention in this article. Teaksmitty (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing name in scientist picture

The name of one of the scientists is missing. He is to the left of Charles Darwin I believe. I am unfamiliar with the scientist so if anyone knows who he is can they please put his name in the list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymantis91 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy paragraph in the lede

Hey everyone! Can we remove the paragraph on philosophy in the lede, or at least move it elsewhere in the article? It seems weird that one of the main points in the "Scientist" article is a small paragraph on philosophy. Thoughts?Ajpolino (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the philosophy info could be briefly mentioned "Science is blah blah blah in contrast with philosophy", and let the Philosophy article describe Philosophy for those who are interested?Ajpolino (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture montage suggestion - replace Merit Ptah?

I know of many scientists that have accomplished more than Merit-Ptah has been known to have, for example, perhaps Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Diderik van der Waals, Imhotep (if you want a good example of an Ancient Egyptian scientist), Élie Metchnikoff, or Wilhelm Röntgen? Sure, Merit-Ptah might be one of the first recorded women scientists, but we're talking about scientists who made significant contributions or have been very influential in their field. Is Merit-Ptah, who doesn't has very few if any recorded accomplishments or discoveries, more influential than the the man who proposed that our solar system is heliocentic, or the man who discovered X-rays? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you think, Sbharris, creator of the montage? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't create it. I think that was user:JSquish [1]. We need to decide somewhere if we're going to have a montage of the greatest scientists (Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Faraday, Rutherford, Fermi, etc-- all who we have), the most famous scientists (Sagan?!) or the most politically correct group of scientists. Hedy Lamarr made a fine engineering suggestion which is much used, but was not in the realm of great scientists. She and Tesla go with Edison. She is in the montage as eye-candy. And as much as I personally like the teaching-style and personality of Niel deGrass Tyson, if you're looking for black scientists, Percy Julian did far more to change the world. SBHarris 00:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I was the creator of the original montage....but not what it is in its current form. I'd love if whoever went in and manipulated my image to add a large number of women scientists, without talking to me first, would speak up, and maybe explain their choices? Otherwise I think I will revert their change, as the original seemed to be working fine. --JSquish (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Like --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@JSquish, the montage looks excellent but something should be adjusted. Shouldn't there be more Italian scientists like Alessandro Volta? Shouldn't there be any Persian scientist like Omar Khayyám Shouldn't there be at least an Indian scientist like Aryabhata? Thanks. Stalkwaldo190d (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover in my opinion Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't deserve a place here. If you still want to keep him, then change the image, as the last one doesn't appear fine. Stalkwaldo190d (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can do! I think you understand exactly what I was going for — the idea behind the montage was not to be "politically correct" for the sake of it, or to make people feel better, but to really attempt to demonstrate the amazing diversity found within the history and science and the scientific community. I'll get back to you with something soon, and you can see what you think! JSquish (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for having place those scientists chronologically. Go ahead with your work and good luck. See you! 18:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Stalkwaldo190d (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @JSquish, are you ready to make certain changes?--Stalkwaldo190d (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost, just give me a little more time! Thanks for your patience. JSquish (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

notable scientists

why the fuck was Grace Hopper removed from the notable scientists??? You sexist loner trolls..

Hello there! I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. This page doesn't have a list of notable scientists. Can you be more specific? She is listed at List_of_computer_scientists. Are you wondering why she isn't on the image at the top? Ajpolino (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge."

So are philosophers, historians, and any other field with a research angle to it. Can we please narrow this down, maybe "systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world"? As it stands the rest of the article is the task of attempting to correct the lede sentence.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. The lede does go on to define a slightly stricter operational definition of scientist, which it then says the article will be concerned with. But you're right, it certainly is an awkward opening. I'm not opposed to your wording. Not sure to what extent (if any) it has been discussed here before. Ajpolino (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The way the article is written now, it looks like while a scientist usually refers to someone who uses the scientific method broadly it is just anybody who fits that description in the first sentence. That's obviously false. If nobody is opposed I'm going to be bold and add in my amendment to it, just so that we may distinguish between scientists and philosophers and historians and theologians. Anybody who does have reason to prefer the current wording can explain why they do here.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

By gender?

What is the scope of all the assertions in that section? US, Europe, global? In fact, what is the point of that biased section at all, which is clearly there just to make a point, with words such as "mere" and so on? Where is the "Men in science" section? I suggest this gender section be removed completely. 141.6.11.24 (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The "By gender" subsection used to be called "Women in science", so the new phrasing is more neutral. The scope is significant information related to gender demographics of the profession. In general terms, well-established and trustworthy demographic information is not biased since it provides just as much information about men as it does about women. The current content of that section as it is right now, though, is quite out-dated (1985 statistics) and the source may need some vetting to determine if it is a reliable and respected one as to the topic. The presence of the word "mere" in the section (and the source) is problematic and may indicate a non-neutral source. -- Netoholic @ 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

What's the scope of the demographics? It is not stated and readers would need to refer to the source to find out. All-in-all, the whole section is potentially misleading, and as you say, out of date. The section might be called "By gender", but the tone of the text is verging on a lament about the perceived "inequality".141.6.11.25 (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Scientist" picture

I guess the picture does not actually show scientist but rather students... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.83.60.51 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scientist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324162930/http://www.medici.org/press/galileo-and-birth-modern-science to http://www.medici.org/press/galileo-and-birth-modern-science
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603044941/http://www-3.unipv.it/webbio/spalla99/spallanz.htm to http://www-3.unipv.it/webbio/spalla99/spallanz.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Mary Somerville

@CaAl: - I just reverted your recent addition, because I agree that the source is problematic - it seems to be someone's blog. I think the assertion is interesting though, and should be included if a better source can be found to support it - although I'd suggest that it be reworded slightly. I think it makes more sense to merge it with the preceding sentence, perhaps something like this: It was not until the 19th century that the term scientist came into regular use after it was coined in 1833 by William Whewell to the writer and polymath Mary Somerville, for whom "man of science", the term in common use at the time, was inadequate. You said that the claim can be supported in other sources - do you know of a reliably published one we could use? We could use that to enhance the matching assertion at Mary Somerville too if you can find one. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a blog isn't the best source. The 'blog' is essentially a description of this book by R. Bergland. The book itself is published by a professional publisher (Beacon press) and authored by a scholar from Simmons university. I haven't read the book, which is why I didn't list that as source, but I guess the book is a better source for the claim. Your textual suggestion to merge the text is fine by me. CaAl (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just found this source - https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127037417 - about William Whewell in 1843 and this - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00033796200202722. --Bduke (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I presume that you mean 1834. The second source that you list is already reference#21 in the article. There seems to be little doubt that Whewell first used the term in print in his anonymous review of Mary Somerville's work, but the suggestion that it was proposed to deliberately include women does not get a mention in most versions of this story. Mikenorton (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Einstein: Poor scientist Example (EDIT: Split topic "Too many links")

Einstein is a poor example of a Scientist. As a mathematician and a physical theorist, he did not practice scientific method. This is a fundamental concept that apparently few people understand.

Theoretical physics is a branch of science. Specifically, Einstein made critical experimental predictions which were then tested, a key example of good application of the scientific method, and certainly going beyond non-scientific theory such as natural philosophy and (arguably) math. It can always be argued if he is the best representative of science, but he certainly practiced the scientific method to great success. --AndreasBM (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Overrepresentation of physicists

Having Einstein, Fermi and Bohr all in a row in the portrait gallery might be an overrepresentation of physicists. While their contributions to science are inarguably great, the space might be better used for broader examples of scientists. Being a physicist myself I have no good examples at hand, however, so I encourage experts from other fields to edit the article. --AndreasBM (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Who is a scientist?

I propose a new section to define exactly Who is a scientist? Who decides who is a scientist? How is it decided? When exactly does someone become a scientist? How has this been determined in different nations and cultures? Can someone be a scientist without formal training or formal experience? Magonz (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)magonz

Perhaps we should add a note on the wide range of definitions?

1. Wiktionary has another definition:

"One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in  original research, or make use of the results of the research of others. "

2. Oxford Dictionary yet another:

"A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences."

3. Merriam Webster:

"a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator"

4. Cambridge dictionary

"an expert who studies or works in one of the sciences"

5. dictionary.com

"an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences."

6. Collins dictionary

"A scientist is someone who has studied science and whose job is to teach or do research in science."

7. MacMillan dictionary

"someone who is trained in science, especially someone whose job is to do scientific research"

I don't have a problem with alternative definitions of a word, and it is not a big deal, but in this case, each source seems quite different from the others and has its own definition. The term "expert" is a bit vague to me. Perhaps I am wrong. I am hoping for suggestions on how to fix this, since the word scientist crops up very often in debates, and it would be good to have a single, and sturdy definition.

It is not Wikipedia's job to promote any of the definitions, but perhaps we should make a note in the article on the fact that there are many definitions of the word?

Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

A scientist is somebody who does science, it isn't difficult. All you need then is a definition of Science. The first line of Science reads "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." and goes on to explain. I dont think we need to do anything in this article to define science any more than that. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nor is that what I was advocating. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

😅What do Scientists do exactly??👀🧠

🌍I think that they research 💦 But what??💬 41.113.36.120 (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• The subject matter of their discipline. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

🏗️ what about engineers😳

🕘✔️The Question still stands 👀 41.113.36.120 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Aren't engineers a sort of lower grade scientist? -Roxy the bad tempered dog 15:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes but don't tell them that. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Science

Science is a good technology in the world 2409:4070:4DCC:7685:0:0:7EC9:4D0E (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding gender

The last sentence stating simply the change in numbers of degrees awarded between two years is not useful as is, it needs to account for or include the change along with the difference of total applicants/enrollments etc for that field of study during that period because it could be a positive or negative depending upon the difference (obviously, and I’m sure it is positive based on the large change making it very unlikely for a greater magnitude of applicants to outweigh, but we shouldn’t have to assume anything in an article) Ramahamalincoln (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Since

I want scientist and is formation 37.210.46.230 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I request scientists work 196.201.218.125 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)