"Science is not a major or a career. It is a commitment to a systematic way of thinking, an allegiance to a way of building knowledge and explaining the universe through testing and factual observation. The thing is, that isn’t a normal way of thinking. It is unnatural and counterintuitive. It has to be learned. Scientific explanation stands in contrast to the wisdom of divinity and experience and common sense." — Atul Gawande
It pains me to see Popper so badly cited by Holden Thorp.
In "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Karl Popper identifies falsifiability as the key concept for the demarcation of science from non-science and pseudoscience. Specifically, Popper emphasizes empiricism and falsifiability, writing that “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations.”
Holden Thorpe builds a straw man with his comment that "Anyone who thinks the Lakota authors are not scientists just because they don’t have a bunch of credentials doesn’t really understand how science works." That's obvious! It's also obviously meaningless to ramble that "everyone who contributes to the scientific enterprise is a scientist" whilst not even trying to define what the scientific enterprise is in the first place. Robert Merton's 1942 seminal work "The Normative Structure of Science" identifies Universalism as one of the fundamental characteristics of science (along with communality, neutrality, and organized skepticism). Universalism is the principle that scientific ideas should be evaluated solely based on their merit, empirical evidence, and logical coherence rather than on factors such as the race, sex, nationality, culture or social standing of the people proposing them. That's a principle that Holden Thorpe's Science Magazine, with its' obsessions over "Identity", routinely undermines.
A scientist is someone who follows the scientific method. Period.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point in our culture where almost no one knows what the scientific method is, anymore.
Broadening the definition of scientist out so much that it is meaningless is not helpful. This is a signature element of those forces of darkness that are frantic to destroy science; redefine the meaning of words so that no one knows what they are talking about anymore.
If you look at the origins of the word "science", you will find that centuries ago the term was incredibly vague and could apply to almost anything. I think we should not go back to this, even though many might favor it.
Dear Professor Thorp, if I may, before we can address your question:
Who is a scientist?
we need to answer:
What is science?
Science is ever-proper alignment of reason with experience.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
posina
"Science is not a major or a career. It is a commitment to a systematic way of thinking, an allegiance to a way of building knowledge and explaining the universe through testing and factual observation. The thing is, that isn’t a normal way of thinking. It is unnatural and counterintuitive. It has to be learned. Scientific explanation stands in contrast to the wisdom of divinity and experience and common sense." — Atul Gawande
It pains me to see Popper so badly cited by Holden Thorp.
In "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Karl Popper identifies falsifiability as the key concept for the demarcation of science from non-science and pseudoscience. Specifically, Popper emphasizes empiricism and falsifiability, writing that “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations.”
Holden Thorpe builds a straw man with his comment that "Anyone who thinks the Lakota authors are not scientists just because they don’t have a bunch of credentials doesn’t really understand how science works." That's obvious! It's also obviously meaningless to ramble that "everyone who contributes to the scientific enterprise is a scientist" whilst not even trying to define what the scientific enterprise is in the first place. Robert Merton's 1942 seminal work "The Normative Structure of Science" identifies Universalism as one of the fundamental characteristics of science (along with communality, neutrality, and organized skepticism). Universalism is the principle that scientific ideas should be evaluated solely based on their merit, empirical evidence, and logical coherence rather than on factors such as the race, sex, nationality, culture or social standing of the people proposing them. That's a principle that Holden Thorpe's Science Magazine, with its' obsessions over "Identity", routinely undermines.
A scientist is someone who follows the scientific method. Period.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point in our culture where almost no one knows what the scientific method is, anymore.
Broadening the definition of scientist out so much that it is meaningless is not helpful. This is a signature element of those forces of darkness that are frantic to destroy science; redefine the meaning of words so that no one knows what they are talking about anymore.
If you look at the origins of the word "science", you will find that centuries ago the term was incredibly vague and could apply to almost anything. I think we should not go back to this, even though many might favor it.