We have been having a discussion here about the terms “scientist”, “professional”, and so on, and I have noticed a pretty clear polarity that verges on paradoxical:
Either the term “scientist” is defined so broadly that it is essentially meaningless, such that being called “scientist” carries no prestige, or else it is defined in a restricted but meaningful way that excludes and thus offends a great many people who want to be called “scientist” because of the attached prestige.
It reminds me of the old joke: “I would never want to join a club that would have me as a member”.
Your thoughts?
Meh. I could discuss, but there’s science to be done. As long as someone deems my contributions as ‘valuable’ (and presumably, somebody must else I wouldn’t get any piece of their hard-earned grant money), I’m quite content with being called a scientist, or student, or in-training or whatever.
Just let me hang out in a lab and not starve too much while doing it =D
Definitions and reality seldom get along with each other… and we as biologists know that esapecially well.
Psi Wavefunction(Quote)
And yet definitions can obviously cause some pretty heated reactions!
T. Ryan Gregory(Quote)
Definitions on the internet: SERIOUS FREAKING BUSINESS, ok? =P
Your initial posts did come off a bit as “grad students don’t really do science” to those who don’t know you at all. Or to those seeking trouble (ie. avg internet denizen)
Psi Wavefunction(Quote)
I guess… especially if one didn’t actually read my initial post, which said:
:-)
T. Ryan Gregory(Quote)