3 ms·

I don't really want to weigh in on a semantic argument, but I was considering what would be a good definition for a 'scientist' vocation. To me, a scientist is

I don't really want to weigh in on a semantic argument, but I was considering what would be a good definition for a 'scientist' vocation. To me, a scientist is someone who engages in research with generalizable results. That would exclude someone who does experiments and analysis, but only applies established methods to a particular problem. Call them an analyst, perhaps, but science is an ongoing dialog that they are not participating in. I think that's part of why many consider it really presumptuous for 'data scientists' to call themselves such. Some of them are certainly developing new methods and engaging in a kind of dialog that is definitely science. Others are addressing business needs with a new sort of analysis, drawing on the field but not giving back to it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it does seem like that pursuit is different enough to bother calling it something else.

taeric 10y ago
Historically, I think this would exclude a lot of well known scientists. Consider, many of them were running experiments to find an answer. Could have been aiming cannon balls or planting crops. Or, in the case of many of them, looking for a way to transmute matter. :) More recently, a lot of scientists worked to figure out atomic energy. Most, in likelihood, we do not know the names of anymore. I think of it as musicians. If you define musician to be rockstar, there are not nearly as many as if you include school teachers, symphony players, conductors, etc. Yet, for most people, this later set would definitely be considered a musician.