4 ms·

The issue with 'scientist' is that it is a self-applied term. As the position 'scientist' carries with it some weight. Therefore those who want to boost thei

by brc 12y ago

The issue with 'scientist' is that it is a self-applied term. As the position 'scientist' carries with it some weight. Therefore those who want to boost their credibility style themselves as scientists to borrow the reputation of others. I've found that areas of real knowledge don't call themselves scientists (ie, physicist, chemist, astronomer) whereas those fields struggling for credibility tend to add 'scientist' on the end. (ie, _____ scientist) At the extreme end you've got people who astroturf organizations and advertise people wearing white coats testing their product. (Ponds Institute, anyone?) Add to that a deep suspicion anyone who is confidently making bold predictions about the future and you've got a two-pass filter for assessing whether to really pay attention or not. That's what works for me.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I've found that areas of real knowledge don't call themselves scientists (ie, physicist, chemist, astronomer) whereas those fields struggling for credibility tend to add 'scientist' on the end. (ie, _____ scientist) Since when do physicists, chemists, and astronomers not call themselves scientists? IME, they tend to do so as a more general term than their specific field name. If you mean "they don't put 'science' in the name of their discipline", well, consider that "physics" -- which is just the latin-derived English (archaic now, but not when "physics" became a name for the field) word for "natural science" pluralized -- is probably not a good example of the trend you are trying to illustrate. Its true that newer fields are more likely to have "science" in modern English as part of their name rather than taking it from some other source (or a Latinized-greek suffix like "-(o)logy"), but that's really not all that substantive a difference. Which is probably just because no one likes the sound of things like Computerology or Datalogy, not because those naming those fields are any more "struggling for credibility" than those who named, say, "geology".

by brc 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I've found that areas of real knowledge don't call themselves scientists (ie, physicist, chemist, astronomer) whereas those fields struggling for credibility tend to add 'scientist' on the end. (ie, _____ scientist) Since when do physicists, chemists, and astronomers not call themselves scientists? IME, they tend to do so as a more general term than their specific field name. If you mean "they don't put 'science' in the name of their discipline", well, consider that "physics" -- which is just the latin-derived English (archaic now, but not when "physics" became a name for the field) word for "natural science" pluralized -- is probably not a good example of the trend you are trying to illustrate. Its true that newer fields are more likely to have "science" in modern English as part of their name rather than taking it from some other source (or a Latinized-greek suffix like "-(o)logy"), but that's really not all that substantive a difference. Which is probably just because no one likes the sound of things like Computerology or Datalogy, not because those naming those fields are any more "struggling for credibility" than those who named, say, "geology".