What do you think it takes to be a scientist?

[KerrMetric]

By scientist I mean active researcher in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.) at a large, internationally recognised research university.

I do not mean high school science teachers, some chap who works at Ford who got an undergraduate degree 30 years ago or engineers and medical doctors.



What, if any, defining characteristics you feel are required?

What precludes, if anything, becoming a scientist?

Why do they seem to have a concordancy of thought on the issues discussed on boards such as this?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

well to start with, you need a great deal of push and drive, a desire to sacrifice everything for your education. i know several people like this who got their first paying job in their late 30's because of the time and intensity of the education required.
sacrifice, hard work, brains, singlemindedness, drive....

 

[lightwait]

By scientist I mean active researcher in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.) at a large, internationally recognised research university.

I do not mean high school science teachers, some chap who works at Ford who got an undergraduate degree 30 years ago or engineers and medical doctors.



What, if any, defining characteristics you feel are required?

What precludes, if anything, becoming a scientist?

Why do they seem to have a concordancy of thought on the issues discussed on boards such as this?

I am old so I do not remember much, but I seem to remember, and I do not know why I am choosing this as a reference, Thomas Khun "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and of course many others, saying if you do not come up through the ranks you can have the info to save the world and no scientist will accept any of your postulates.

This is somewhat the difficulty Einstein had.

The problem that I see and found personally, was that coming up through their ranks gave me little ability to start a bent of my own. A BA gives us a general knowledge and in essence gives us the ability to use the library properly. A masters allows us to know what knowledge has been aquired in a particular bent chosen. A PHD etc. gives us the ability to mingle two or more academic pursuits and come up with one of our own. By the time that happens, most of us do not have enough brain power to do anything else. Moreover, we are entrenched in someone elses academic structure—difficult place to have a revolution. We speak like and act like and react like those of our ilk—hense, "concordancy of thought." Science in my opinion is a gift from God to humankind to help us get the work done. Science helps us in many ways to bring the Gospel of the Kingdom to others. I am sure you already understand the dark side of science that allows man to have the mindset and the ability for one to rule another.

I used to understand the Einsteinian equations. When I got to the big bang, afer years of hard labor, I found myself in the dark. I did not have the intellectual ability to climb out of that place where all things became nothing. Most do not get that far and have room to maneuver in their minds. I found myself stuck—and I cried—the place I found myself living was in the darkness of nothing.

Needless to say, I read the Bible and my heart and my mind were renewed and Jesus turned me from darkness to light—I now reside in the light of eternal life—nothing does not exist. I had to tell others, so I entered the ministry. My background has allowed me to see a need for revolution, but alas, it is difficult for me to bring forth my understandings because I did not come up through the ranks of the church. How would one suggest to the church that we did not come out of nothing—ex nihilo—when nothing does not exist. God is all in all.

"What precludes, if anything, becoming a scientist?" If you are a Christian looking for the answers so that you might serve others—nothing!

Blessings to you....

 

[Willtor]

What do I think it takes to be a scientist?

I'm going to approach this question using a combination of my experience and reason. If other people have experience and reason they'd like to add, we can come up with a scientific understanding of what science is:

First, you need to be able to write well. If you can't write well, nobody is going to support your research projects. If you're fortunate enough to obtain a government grant, you're almost in the clear because you don't have to worry about your funds drying up except for changes in administration. Also, there is a constant battle for lab space with the other research scientists. If another scientist wants your lab space, you'd better make darned certain you have students working in there, 24/7, or he can make a case to the department that you aren't using the space efficiently. Every now and then, he may walk by the lab and take mental note as to how many students there are, nod a self-satisfied nod, and walk on. One thing that may help to maintain lab space is to offer another, non-threatening scientist access to your lab where he can put students; thus causing the appearance of efficient use of space. If you need resources (computers or other equipment, chemicals, etc.), you can either use some of your hard-earned grant money, or you can mooch off another scientist (while he isn't paying attention), or you can make a request to the department.

Sometimes you are required to teach a course. If this comes up, don't fret. Make a case to the department that your research is critically important, and request extra money for graduate students. Grad students are key in teaching courses. They gain valuable experience, help solve their own (precarious) monetary problems, and probably already know the particulars of what needs to be taught. Suffice to say, there's no need for you to "get your hands dirty" with said particulars.

When it finally comes time to publish (and those darned journals only publish a couple times a year), you need to stay up all hours of the night waiting on your incompetent students to email you a "final draft." "Final draft" is in quotes because, although it's a draft, it's almost never final. Grad students display all of the grammatical and spelling power of a second grader, and typically copy and paste the text they've written and formatted from MS Word to LaTeX. If you're really lucky, you have a paper that can be reworked to the point where it's ready to make the (extended) submission deadline.

Publishing books is another matter, altogether. If you've never published a book, you're in for quite a ride. I won't get into that, here. If you've already published, you can modify what you've written, update it with new examples, rework the outline, and republish it as a "second edition." This is particularly useful since every time you republish, your students have to rebuy. If you've managed to "get in good" with another research scientist who has already published, you can help him rework his book and be added to the list of coauthors on the second edition's cover. Publishing books is the most effective means you have of acquiring lab space.

"Publish or Die"

 

[Brownsy]

Amongst other things, objectivity !

Science is about truth, not about any 1 persons personal opinion or agenda

Blessings to you all

 

[KerrMetric]

What do I think it takes to be a scientist?

I'm going to approach this question using a combination of my experience and reason. If other people have experience and reason they'd like to add, we can come up with a scientific understanding of what science is:

First, you need to be able to write well. If you can't write well, nobody is going to support your research projects. If you're fortunate enough to obtain a government grant, you're almost in the clear because you don't have to worry about your funds drying up except for changes in administration. Also, there is a constant battle for lab space with the other research scientists. If another scientist wants your lab space, you'd better make darned certain you have students working in there, 24/7, or he can make a case to the department that you aren't using the space efficiently. Every now and then, he may walk by the lab and take mental note as to how many students there are, nod a self-satisfied nod, and walk on. One thing that may help to maintain lab space is to offer another, non-threatening scientist access to your lab where he can put students; thus causing the appearance of efficient use of space. If you need resources (computers or other equipment, chemicals, etc.), you can either use some of your hard-earned grant money, or you can mooch off another scientist (while he isn't paying attention), or you can make a request to the department.

Sometimes you are required to teach a course. If this comes up, don't fret. Make a case to the department that your research is critically important, and request extra money for graduate students. Grad students are key in teaching courses. They gain valuable experience, help solve their own (precarious) monetary problems, and probably already know the particulars of what needs to be taught. Suffice to say, there's no need for you to "get your hands dirty" with said particulars.

When it finally comes time to publish (and those darned journals only publish a couple times a year), you need to stay up all hours of the night waiting on your incompetent students to email you a "final draft." "Final draft" is in quotes because, although it's a draft, it's almost never final. Grad students display all of the grammatical and spelling power of a second grader, and typically copy and paste the text they've written and formatted from MS Word to LaTeX. If you're really lucky, you have a paper that can be reworked to the point where it's ready to make the (extended) submission deadline.

Publishing books is another matter, altogether. If you've never published a book, you're in for quite a ride. I won't get into that, here. If you've already published, you can modify what you've written, update it with new examples, rework the outline, and republish it as a "second edition." This is particularly useful since every time you republish, your students have to rebuy. If you've managed to "get in good" with another research scientist who has already published, you can help him rework his book and be added to the list of coauthors on the second edition's cover. Publishing books is the most effective means you have of acquiring lab space.

"Publish or Die"

Cynic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thank you (Lord), for these posts that reveal what ordinary, observant people think about scientists. Please help KerrMetric see this as well. 8^)

 

[KerrMetric]

Thank you (Lord), for these posts that reveal what ordinary, observant people think about scientists. Please help KerrMetric see this as well. 8^)

Huh?

 

[Willtor]

Cynic.

Haha! I'm just teasing (sort of). It was a sardonic answer for a few reasons:

1. I thought it was funny. By the lack of "reps" I'm guessing nobody else did. That's okay.

2. People who think of science as something "out there" that is done by "those people" in some idealistic environment are totally mistaken. We're normal people who lead normal lives and work in our respective fields.

3. People who think of scientists as an esoteric cult that has any sort of interest in hiding the truth or masking certain evidence are off the deep end. We're normal people who lead normal lives and work in our respective fields.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Haha! I'm just teasing (sort of). It was a sardonic answer for a few reasons:

1. I thought it was funny. By the lack of "reps" I'm guessing nobody else did. That's okay.

2. People who think of science as something "out there" that is done by "those people" in some idealistic environment are totally mistaken. We're normal people who lead normal lives and work in our respective fields.

3. People who think of scientists as an esoteric cult that has any sort of interest in hiding the truth or masking certain evidence are off the deep end. We're normal people who lead normal lives and work in our respective fields.

I think you had it right in your first post.

 

[KerrMetric]

I think you had it right in your first post.

But then your knowledge of the actual day to day workings of science is probably zero either with respect to the work performed, how it is done and by whom it is accomplished.

 

[Dannager]

Thank you (Lord), for these posts that reveal what ordinary, observant people think about scientists. Please help KerrMetric see this as well. 8^)

Man, what? Either you're praying on a message board (which just smacks of condescending behavior) or you're making a thinly-veiled jab (without a clear point) here. Which is it?

 

[Willtor]

I think you had it right in your first post.

Yeah, but I'm just not convinced that this was actually the picture you had in your mind. You have stated (in another thread) that geologists are either covering up evidence or that they're blind to certain interpretations of the data. The simple fact is, in academia, if there's a possible thesis there, you can bet somebody's going to pick it up and run with it. Something like a global flood (of which you have asserted that there have been many) would make a sweet thesis if the evidence were there. It's just not.

Yes, there are politics in science. There are a lot of politics in science. But they aren't what you think they are. And they certainly aren't the politics of science against any particular person or group. Some people are anti-religion or anti-Christian, but some of us are Christian (or Muslim or Hindu), ourselves. You can bet that none of our religious views make it into the literature, though, either implicitly or explicitly.

 

[disciple777]

By scientist I mean active researcher in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.) at a large, internationally recognised research university.

I do not mean high school science teachers, some chap who works at Ford who got an undergraduate degree 30 years ago or engineers and medical doctors.



What, if any, defining characteristics you feel are required?

What precludes, if anything, becoming a scientist?

Why do they seem to have a concordancy of thought on the issues discussed on boards such as this?

You do not need a Ph.D to become a Scientist. However, if you had it, you get the recognition. There are more inventors without a Ph.D than those who have. To be a Scientist, you must be Very curious about everything around you. You must also have a passion to study them.Then you must have basic understanding of Science ( any discipline). I can also tell you that there are many Ph.D's who have no common sense. I am not putting down all Ph.D's. There are more people with Common sense and they have no Ph.D's.

Having a Ph.D shows that a person went through strict discipline of study for perhaps 28 years with lots of scrifice on money, time and life. What is important is what the person does with the Ph.D.

 

[CPman2004]

Well God is leading me to Genetic Engineering and to do research at a university so I think I should offer what I think a Scientist should have.

First and formost, passion. One must have passion for their work, and to expanding knowledge. Without that, being a scientist is pointless, because most scientists aren't in it for the money, but for the thrill and joy of discovery.

Second, good education. Can't start delving into the inner workings of the world without first having a good knowledge of that world.

Third, Patience. Experiments take time, and often fail. Grants proposals need to be written, and lab equipment maintained. Time can be your enemy or your friend.

Fourth, abiltity to put your thoughts on paper in a objective and emperical manner.

Last, I would say that a scientist must have the ability to let go their pride. Science is a community, and pride can hamper sharing of knowledge, and the futherment of science.

Those are the qualities I think a scientist should have before they enter the world of academia. I pray that God will revel more qualites that I need to develope before I enter the scientific world, and I pray that he will use me for the furtherment of his will. I pray that I may be a light unto the darkened world of academia, and that I may be able to show Christ's Love in the Lab. I also pray that I will not suffer intellectual pride, as I sometimes do, and that I will not look down upon my fellow scientists because of their worldviews and outlooks toword Christianity.

I would like to add that a book that has really helped me see what it takes to be a Scientist and how to releate my faith in that world, is Being a Christian In Science by Walter R. Hearn. It offers really pratical advice on how to be a scientist, and how to intragate your faith into it. It is NOT, however, an creation vs. evoultion book, just a collection of advice that the author has learned and gathered over the years.

 

[Mallon]

The number one thing it takes to be a good scientist is a knowledge of what science is. Science is an appeal to the natural world, and does not invoke the powers of God for explanation. Good science is limited to what humans can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. It opperates by the scientific method, which consists of gathering evidence to test a hypothesis, and drawing a conclusion from the results. Anyone who feels otherwise would not make a good scientist and are only fooling themselves.

 

[artybloke]

I can also tell you that there are many Ph.D's who have no common sense. I am not putting down all Ph.D's. There are more people with Common sense and they have no Ph.D's.

1) Define Common Sense.

2) Science is frequently counter-intuitive: "What do you mean, the sun stays still and the planets move round it? Look, I can see the sun move in the sky."

3) Sometimes scientists can be personally so focused on an area of study that they forget to do the ordinary things. But then so do artists and academics in all fields.