science teachers who call themselves scientists

[Mongrel]

Re: Re: science teachers who call themselves scientists

I agree with the teacher who says that "anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it is too". I'll grant you they aren't professional scientists, which is perhaps your complaint. I'm not a professional cook, but I can still legimately call myself a cook. I do, after all, prepare meals for others on a regular basis. Likewise, I think those teachers can call themselves scientists if they choose.

I'm not sure I understand your beef with it. I seriously doubt they are writing down "scientist" on job applications rather than "science teacher". And I don't think the general public would be any more confused by their claims to be scientists than by my claim to be a cook.

Beth

Having had some background in professional kitchens calling yourself a cook, to me, would infer that a) You enjoy cooking as a hobby and\or b) You work in a small commercial place that serves "home food" (not that there's anything wong with that ). Chef is generally used to denote 'Cooks for a living', 'Has a high standard of culinary skills' and to a lesser degree 'Is able to manage a Kitchen or section competently'.

In my opinion whilst "anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it..." contains a facet of what makes a scientist, there's a whole lot more to it than that. Saying differently is either an attempt to muddy the water, similar to the Anti-Evo crowd decrying it for being "Only a theory" or very bad usage of English - which is never a good thing

 

[Beth]

The original post was in regard to a science teacher referring to him/herself as a scientist during the course of an internet discussion. Another science teacher concurred and said that students were as well. This is a legimate use of the word scientist. Consider the first definition in the link Fordama provided "A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation." That fits science teachers. Now consider the second definition: "a person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject". That fits students as well as teachers.

Now, context is important. Czarzy posted

So, when a list such as "400 Scientists Who Oppose Evolution" at the Discovery Institute creationist (ID) site is posted, you are confident that the general public realizes that the list comprises anyone who wonders about the natural world and tries to discover what is known, instead of thinking that it is a list of people whose livelihood depends on their being as objective as possible, basing their inferences on the presumption that physical phenomena are due to physically mechanisms, subject to rigourous peer review, etc, (ie, the more precise term of scientist)?

In that context, I would presume they mean professionals with degrees. But in the context of an internet discussion, I think it's perfectly reasonable and legit for science teachers to claim the title of scientist, just as it would be legit for a music teacher to claim to be a musician or an art teacher to claim to be an artist.

gg500 said

But in public discourse, and when people want to legislate things based on "science" and what "scientists" say, there should be a system to establish WHAT is science and WHO says what such science is, etc.

Yes, I agree with you regarding legislation. Public discourse covers a lot of ground, and I think a looser definition is appropriate for internet discussions.

The quack with a fundamentalist bend who parades himself as a scientist, and who claims that studies say millions of women die each year from abortions (whatever his name is) is not a scientist at all. But that "credential" makes him have certain credibility with people who are looking for a secular argument to support their religious agenda. That's just one random example...It is crucial that we scrutinize those who claim to have "scientific proof".

I have to disagree here. IMO it's far more important to scrutinize the "scientific proof" than the credentials of the scientist. In the ID hearings in Kansas a few months ago, many well-credentialed professional scientists gave testimony for supporting ID. Should we accept their opinions just because they are scientists? Or should we examine the science and accept or reject it based on it's inherent worth?

That's why I think it's important to encourage people to think of themselves as scientists, just as they might think of themselves as musicians or cooks. They don't have to be professional level scientists to be able to conduct experiments or give critical thought to things that affect their own lives.

Beth

 

[Czarzy]

Your position seems to be that a science teacher who claims to other science teachers on an internet forum that s/he is a scientist …

…would NOT imply to other people that s/he is a scientist: to people (like students) who do not have a clear idea of the difference between the job specifications of a scientist versus those of a science educator.

My position is that a person who is a science educator and who claims to be a scientist among fellow science educators …

… may indeed leave that impression on those people, such as students, who are not as savvy as to what a scientist is and on what a scientist‘s professional reputation is based, and that this has serious consequences in the public perception of scientists’ credibility, if the science educator expresses opinions in regards to science that are definitely not those of the majority of real scientists.

Today’s students are tomorrow’s voters. If they think that “Mr. F, my science teacher, was a scientist, and he was a creationist, then, gosh, scientists disagree about whether evolution or creationism is the best scientific answer to explaining the diversity of living things.”, then one can see the importance of not proclaiming oneself a scientist unless one is a scientist by profession, under the intense scrutiny that is part of the profession.

 

[Beth]

Your position seems to be that a science teacher who claims to other science teachers on an internet forum that s/he is a scientist …

…would NOT imply to other people that s/he is a scientist: to people (like students) who do not have a clear idea of the difference between the job specifications of a scientist versus those of a science educator.

No, I think that science teachers fit one definition of scientist. I don't think that people will be any more confused about which definition they are using than they would be by an art teacher who claimed to be an artist. They are scientists, just an art teacher is an artist even if they never had a single commercial sale. I expect a high school science teacher to be about as talented a scientist as I expect a high school art teacher to be as an artist.

 

[chulbert]

There are three separate issues here. First, can you be a non-professional scientist? Second, does a mere "curiosity about the natural world" make you a scientist? Third, does being a science teacher make you a scientist?

1) Yes. Science is a process, a methodology and a way of thinking and analyzing the world, and any practitioner of science can reasonably be called a scientist.

2) No. While scientists certainly possess "curiosity about the natural world", the thing that makes you a scientist is how you "[try] to find out about it." If you use the scientific method, you're a scientist. If you don't, you're not.

3) No, but it's not clear to me from the original post that the teacher claimed to be a scientist because she's a science teacher. Could she not simply mean that she considers herself both a scientist AND a science educator?

In the United States we expect a person calling themselves a physician to have a degree from an accredited medical college, and at the very least to have completed specific training to be able to treat patients.

Some fields require practitioners to be licensed and some do not. I don't see this as a substantial point. Is a philosopher not a philosopher unless they have a degree in philosophy?

We cannot afford (in the name of progress, science and common sense) calling just anyone who is curious about science a scientist.

Perhaps the problem is on the other end? Perhaps we shouldn't refer to researchers and experts as mere scientists when we in fact mean more?

 

[Uncertainty]

I don't post much if at all but this is an issue that recently came up at school. I'm just about done with a physics degree and this issue actually came up in discussion with some of our professors.

Even after we graduate we won't be considered physicists by the general community unless we are doing actual research or working as a professional in the area of physics. So being a physicist means actual work in the field is being done. I would imagine the same sort of thing is understood by biologists, zoologists, chemists and so on.

The issue over being a scientist is different. Anyone who preforms their own experements or follows the scientific method would be considered a scientist, but the specialized sciences have thier own title.

Thats just what I understood the opinion of my professors to be. I got the idea that they wouldn't have a problem with anyone who actually practices science calling them a scientist, though physicist is out of bounds.

 

[ingoa]

"Real scientists" don't call themselves "scientists". Just for fun I got a professional newspaper (CERN Courier) from my basket and had a look in the recruitment section:

Offers were for:
- Junior Professorship (Tenure Track)
- Scientific Assistant (my position is called the same)
- Postdoctoral Research Positions (a dozen or so)
- Experimental Physicist
- Professor for Particle Accelerator Physics
- Director (2)
- Research Associate
- Lecturer

but no scientist. Scientist is not a profession. Physicist is (or can be).

If somebody calls himself a "scientist" there is a high likelyhood that he isn't. I call myself a physicist. But I have to be drunk to do that. Normally I call myself particle pysicists or nuclear physicist. What do I know about solid state matter.... Probably more than 99% of mankind, but surely not enough to be a true expert.

The notion of a scientist is only used by the media and not so educated. It implies a broadness of knowledge that is not possible anymore.

BTW.: Dick Feynman called himself a teacher with strong curiosity.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Scientists are people who contribute to the advancement of the subject through theories and tests. Teachers don't have that contribution and are not scientists, they teach kids theories. Usually a scientist has a graduate degree.

Take a historian for example. A high school history teacher teaches information that historians have written about. That teacher (who has a BA and a credential) doesn't contribute anything new, but merely passes on information that has been debated and written about by historians. To be a historian or scientist means you have at least an MA because a MA means you did research and studied a subject to be awarded that degree. In that respect the person shared personal theories and research to the professional academic world.

As for the original post, its very troublesome that someone with a Bachelors thinks they have enough of an education to put themselves at the rank of a PhD. Last thing we need is more uneducated people (like Kent Hovind) calling themselves an expert arguing that creationism is fact.

 

[Jeff Corey]

A minimum requirement to be called a scientist might be an advanced (M.S or Ph.D.) degree in a recognized science such as biology and a publication in a real scientific journal.
That would give Emily Rosa only half the qualifications, so far. But how old is she now? 12?

 

[Bob Klase]

Another teacher wrote in and said not only that was she a scientist but her students are, too, and that anyone who has a curiosity about the natural world and tries to find out about it is, too.

First problem is, where did that definition of 'scientist' come from? I looked at several dictionaries and found none that defined a scientist as just someone with a curiosity about the natural world. Most of the definitions I read were along the lines of this one: "A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science."

So, having a natural curiosity about the natural world makes a scientist the same way that being curious about food makes you a gormet chef. Or being curious about how airplanes fly makes you a pilot.

If we just make up whatever definition we want then anyone can be anything.

a person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject". That fits students

Not necessarily.

 

[Chicken Pot Pie]

As it happens Beth, I am a proffesional musician, and I also teach music part time. In this business, we have a (mean) saying: Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach. You've heard that I'm sure. I can't speak for the science community, but I bet you there's some of that in their field as well.

From a musical stand point, the issue is that the folks who spend their lives showing the fundamentals of instruments and music to students 8 hours a day, don't have the time or the inclination to practice their own skills as performers, as much as those who make a living playing music.

But interestingly, the term musician isn't ever associated with any kind of education. There are marvelous self taught musicians, and there are academics with a dismal concept of performance.

And, what's funny is that if you're teaching music, more often than not you'll have to have some kind of music degree or a music education degree, when that is simply NEVER required of a performer.

The fact is, my best teachers were always talented as educators, but not as performers. The teachers whom I respected as performers lacked a thorough didactical knowledge which made them less than great teachers.

See, to me educators are invaluable. Let's give them their due:

Don't call them musicians, accountants, engineers or scientists. Lets just call them TEACHERS. Their profession deserves much more respect than it gets.

I realize this discussion is about scientists, but as a musician and soon to be substitute teacher, I have seen more than one side of music educators. My Junior and High School music teachers had their hands full with classes and private lessons, which many schools don't even offer to beginners. We we fortunate to have two lessons a week for our first three years. They also coordinated the pit orchestra for every year's musical (Guys and Dolls, Oklahoma, and Sweet Charity in my years). We had practices after school, weekend trips and performances, and still the directors had time for our private lessons. That gave us the knowledge that discipline lead to better playing.

In college, my Theory professor was a composer and gave recitals, held workshops, and was very respected in the music circles. Yes, an educator, but still a professional.

Using their examples, though I'm only going to be a sub, I hope to incorporate many of their teaching styles. They both were wonderful musicians and educators.

 

[Roboramma]

Here's a question, what was the person trying to say by saying "I'm a scientist"?
Why not say, "I'm a science teacher"?
Perhaps some expert knowledge or understanding of the issues was being suggested by the statement?
In that case, no, the implied meaning is not correct.

In what case would the statement that someone without any advanced training in science is a scientist be informative?

 

[egslim]

I insist that indeed, only the people with PhD's have a right to call themselves full fledged scientists.

There are people who've studied physics, yet believe in creationism. Are they scientists?
In my opinion, a scientist is anyone who seeks to advance his knowledge through use of the scientific method. That obviously excludes quacks. Note also that someone can be a scientist in one field and not in another.
It's not about how much you know of a field, it's about accepting you could be wrong - which is what the scientific method is all about..

During WWII a group of British scientists used the scientific method to improve tactics, for example to find the most effective setting for depthcharges. Definately not a PhD subject, but it was science and they used it quite succesfully.

 

[eri]

There are many people out there who deserve to be called scientists, and not just the ones with PhDs. They have done research (often original) and have been published in peer-reviewed journals. They are called grad students (and talented and motivated undergrads). As one of them myself, I call myself a scientist. I have done research, been published, and been hired on the basis of my research. I haven't finished that PhD yet, but I will someday.

On another note, I am also a musician. Although I have studied for many years and am being paid to play on a regular basis, and do consider myself a musician, I don't consider myself a PROFESSIONAL musician, which I define as someone who went to school for it (or can make a living doing it). Perhaps the same should apply to science? I would call myself a professional scientist (my main source of income is my research position) and an amatuar musician (supplimental income).

How does that work? Amatuar scientist vs. professional? We already have quite a few amatuar astronomers out there, why not amatuar biologists?

 

[athon]

I'm a science teacher. And I used to be a scientist; a laboratory scientist who applied science to pathology diagnostics. My official job title was 'medical scientist'. Said so on my badge .

But I never advanced the field of science at all. I didn't work in research; I only applied it and used scientific thinking to make diagnostic decisions.

So the term 'scientist' is not a clear definition. 'One who applies scientific methodology' is the best I can come up with.

That said, I think in teaching it is a more of a poetic application. I admit I have on occasion motivated the kids by saying 'in my science class, you are all scientists'...much like a music teacher might say 'in my class, you are all musicians'. I say it to get the kids to think that they should behave like scientists in my classes. I don't think any kid really thinks 'Hey, I'm a real scientist'.

Some people have some good points here, but I think it's a little much to think it is undoing the glue of society if kids start to think of themselves as scientists because a teacher calls them that. As for calling oneself 'scientist', if it is used in a capacity that could cause confusion of profession, it could cause problems. I'm not a scientist anymore, in an occupation sense, but I still feel I have the skills I possessed.

Athon