6 ms·

Academics =/= scientists The former is a more expansive category than the latter. This is something which is true for all academics.

Vinnl 9y ago
It might be good to know that some languages have one word ("scientist") for everyone working in science, the humanities and social scientists. Thus, and given the context of the article, it's safe to assume that people mean academics when they say scientists.
- Emma_Goldman 9y ago
  That explanation presumes (i) that most or all of the people who have been using 'scientist' in that way are non-English speaking; and (ii) that they have no knowledge of or fail to use the English sense of 'scientist'. I don't see why that's plausible at all. I think the likely explanation is that we're on a tech forum with a decisively scientistic outlook, and in which most of the people here have a scientific background. And of course 'people mean academics when they say scientists', but that's the point - we shouldn't sublate all academic work into the sciences.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    The second is definitely plausible - I only recently learned this after diving really deep into the academic world. Most of the friends I have in academia don't know this distinction. The first is not necessary (although still not that implausible to me) - non-native speakers also influence native speakers. But yes, your final paragraph is definitely true too. Although I think in the comment you responded to, you can equate them.
    - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
      Well, maybe we just disagree. I think it's very unlikely that most or all the people to use 'scientist' in that way are all three of: non-English speaking; based in the sciences (for it would not be possible to conflate the two otherwise), and ignorant of the distinction, or just indisposed toward using it. How can you equate them? I don't see it personally. Science is defined by the scientific method. Most of the humanities do not use the scientific method most of the time (history, philosophy, sociology, English, etc.)
      - Vinnl 9y ago
        > Well, maybe we just disagree. I guess :) (Note also that you don't need to be based in the sciences - you can also just not be in academia.) I can equate them in this context because OP said: > Scientists can't have their cake and eat it too. Either they fund their own research and publish in prestigious expensive journals that cost the public money, or they take public money and make the research available for all. The same holds true for those in the humanities, right?

Vinnl 9y ago

It might be good to know that some languages have one word ("scientist") for everyone working in science, the humanities and social scientists. Thus, and given the context of the article, it's safe to assume that people mean academics when they say scientists.

Emma_Goldman 9y ago
That explanation presumes (i) that most or all of the people who have been using 'scientist' in that way are non-English speaking; and (ii) that they have no knowledge of or fail to use the English sense of 'scientist'. I don't see why that's plausible at all. I think the likely explanation is that we're on a tech forum with a decisively scientistic outlook, and in which most of the people here have a scientific background. And of course 'people mean academics when they say scientists', but that's the point - we shouldn't sublate all academic work into the sciences.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  The second is definitely plausible - I only recently learned this after diving really deep into the academic world. Most of the friends I have in academia don't know this distinction. The first is not necessary (although still not that implausible to me) - non-native speakers also influence native speakers. But yes, your final paragraph is definitely true too. Although I think in the comment you responded to, you can equate them.
  - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
    Well, maybe we just disagree. I think it's very unlikely that most or all the people to use 'scientist' in that way are all three of: non-English speaking; based in the sciences (for it would not be possible to conflate the two otherwise), and ignorant of the distinction, or just indisposed toward using it. How can you equate them? I don't see it personally. Science is defined by the scientific method. Most of the humanities do not use the scientific method most of the time (history, philosophy, sociology, English, etc.)
    - Vinnl 9y ago
      > Well, maybe we just disagree. I guess :) (Note also that you don't need to be based in the sciences - you can also just not be in academia.) I can equate them in this context because OP said: > Scientists can't have their cake and eat it too. Either they fund their own research and publish in prestigious expensive journals that cost the public money, or they take public money and make the research available for all. The same holds true for those in the humanities, right?