I wish to be a scientist who wishes that too 
I want to be a scientist
Being a scientist is not about some silly name or degree, if you want to be a scientist, than just be one, for cripes sake.
Run experiments, test hypotheses, start asking questions about you're own life and your beliefs. Science is just like art, if you want to do it, just do it. You don't ask someone if you can draw a picture.
Run experiments, test hypotheses, start asking questions about you're own life and your beliefs. Science is just like art, if you want to do it, just do it. You don't ask someone if you can draw a picture.
There are different degrees of scientists in level as well as different types of scientists.
Yeah, I'd like to be a scientist as well. If I become one, I like to be a well respected one in the forefront and edge of science. I'd like to be in the frontiers, discovering new things that really help other people out whether it be indirectly or directly.
Yeah, I'd like to be a scientist as well. If I become one, I like to be a well respected one in the forefront and edge of science. I'd like to be in the frontiers, discovering new things that really help other people out whether it be indirectly or directly.
I was an evil scientist for a while, hence the existence of many of today's problems.
What sort of a scientist do you want to be? You can choose from Physicist (my personal favourite), Chemist (a bit rubbish since you have to dress like a lab technician who are low lifes) or Biologist (which is just looking at things), or just do what you want like Frankenstein - the man not the monster.
What sort of a scientist do you want to be? You can choose from Physicist (my personal favourite), Chemist (a bit rubbish since you have to dress like a lab technician who are low lifes) or Biologist (which is just looking at things), or just do what you want like Frankenstein - the man not the monster.
I want to be a "social" acientist. Altough many of you would certainly state that social sciences aren't really sciences therefore they cannot have scientists, I do believe them to be sciences. I want to be an economist. But not an applied one but a theorical one. Studying the economic aspect of society really requieres a scientific approach.
| LeviticusMky wrote: |
| Being a scientist is not about some silly name or degree, if you want to be a scientist, than just be one, for cripes sake.
Run experiments, test hypotheses, start asking questions about you're own life and your beliefs. Science is just like art, if you want to do it, just do it. You don't ask someone if you can draw a picture. |
Amen brother!!!
Yeah I want to be a scientist. And I'm in a half way to it. But still many hard work is before me. To be a scientist one must have some typical characteristic properties. You must be clever, but it's not all. You must be able to analyze complicated and complex situations and make a suggestion out of your analysis. You must be able to sort the information you are getting from your project and at the and you must have the ability to present the results of your work to the scientific world. Being a scientist is not an easy task. It is verz hard everyday work. And just few of them could be respected and can come up with something important to humankind.
I want to become one,and I was trying my best but now I was wodering if I was on a right way.I fear that the more harder I work,the farer I leaving the dream.
| risuarez wrote: |
| I want to be a "social" acientist. Altough many of you would certainly state that social sciences aren't really sciences therefore they cannot have scientists, I do believe them to be sciences. I want to be an economist. But not an applied one but a theorical one. Studying the economic aspect of society really requieres a scientific approach. |
Without wishing to sound condescending (I don't want to be), I am one of those who argue that sociology/introspective psychology and the like are NOT sciences.
The basic definition of science is that which can be tested (and, importantly, falsified). Sociology and some psychology does not make statements of that sort. If you explain a social grouping or interaction in terms of freudian analysis then who can prove you wrong ? Likewise someone else explains the same phenomena in terms of social dynamics and someone else uses a group psychology approach to reduce the event to a series of individual and conscious decisions. You might even, god save us, get an ethnomethodologist piping up with his/her theory of how the participants were 'doing walking' which resulted in them coming into an interpersonal relationship which...........arghhhhhhhhh.
Suffice it to say that, whilst I would not doubt for a moment the value of such disciplines, science is a gold standard BECAUSE it makes statements which can be falsified and therefore the bull gets filtered out early. Sociology and the other 'social sciences' do this to a very limited extent (psychology in the sense of neuro-psychology for example is science - no doubt. In te sense of introspective analysis or behavioural categorisation it is NOT science).....
Cheers
Chris
Scientist help
--> invent good quality products
---> easy to use
---> easy to implement
---> easy to operate
--> invent good quality products
---> easy to use
---> easy to implement
---> easy to operate
| alwahsh wrote: |
| I wish to be a scientist who wishes that too |
Yeah and I want to be an Albert Einstein who believes in religion. Really, I do. I am not being sarcastic.
| tamilchild wrote: |
| Scientist help
--> invent good quality products ---> easy to use ---> easy to implement ---> easy to operate |
Non of these are the job or the responsibility of scientists, with the possible exception of the first.
The rest are best handled by engineers and trainers who know much more about ergonomics, documentation, user friendliness and the like.
Scientists are responsible for work/theory/development of knowledge in their own disciplines. The use, dissemination and practicality of such knowledge is not their concern and, I believe, that is as it should be. Whilst I believe that all scientists should certainly have a moral view and stance on the work that they are involved in (the defence that 'it's not my fault what they did with my discovery' is, to my mind, a cop-out and morally vacuous), I do not think that they are necessarily the best people to develop, commoditise any developments from such theory/work/development. I speak as a teacher here - teachers generally make a better job of writing user-guides than do scientists, for example, because it is part of their daily experience and knowledge. Likewise engineers are better fitted to design actual product than scientists because that is, well, simply put it is WHAT THEY DO.
I'm not just being pedantic here - it's important. The 'measure of practicality' is something I am anxious to keep out of science as much as possible. Once we start expecting, then prescribing, that scientists study such and such, in such and such a way, for such and such a benefit, then we are heading down a path I do not want to walk. I prefer to let scientists study whatever they like in whatevr way they like. There are already enough (too many?) constraints on what scientists study - in the form of social and professional pressure and funding/career availability - without adding the requirements of practicality and user friendliness.
Remember, 'education' is from the root e duco, meaning 'lead towards the light'. It does not add the requirement that one should also be expected to construct a light bulb that works well, consumes no power and lasts forever.
Cheers
Chris
Related topics
 |