3 ms·
I read it differently, like the term "amateur scientist" that has been used in the past. To me, it's a term of respect, acknowledging the fact that it's hard to
by analog31 3y ago
I read it differently, like the term "amateur scientist" that has been used in the past. To me, it's a term of respect, acknowledging the fact that it's hard to do good science without institutional support, uplifting when someone does it, and spectacular when it's a major discovery.
And oddly enough, people defend science by pointing out that it's like what most people do all the time, but perhaps conducted at a more sophisticated level.
Disclosure: I have "scientist" in my job title.
- jasonhansel 3y agoI'm also defending science by, as you say, pointing out that it's like what most people do all the time. But it's precisely for this reason that I don't think that one can draw any clear distinction between scientists and non-scientists or see scientists as somehow distinct from "citizens." Of course, we can use various terms to describe people belonging to specific institutions or working in specific disciplines, but I don't think it makes any sense to draw a general distinction between "professional scientists," "amateur scientists," and "non-scientists." (Few, I think, consider "amateur" a compliment.)
- tsimionescu 3y ago"amateur" and "professional" have pretty precise definitions: a professional X is someone who is payed to do X, an amateur X is someone who does X without being payed for it. So, someone who does science without being paid specifically to do science is quite appropriately named "an amateur scientist".