jump to last post 1-37 of 37 discussions (237 posts)

Is everyone a scientist?

  1. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Considering that every individual learns from experimentation in life, does this make every person a scientist?

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes it just makes a person real f-ing stupid.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol That is true. I think it makes them stupid when not learning from a bad experiment the first time and repeating the same mistakes.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Or watching someone do something stupid and think they can improve on it!

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So do you think everyone could be considered a scientist? Even the ones that repeat mistakes are still experimenting, just expecting different outcomes with the same results. lol

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That criteria makes them insane.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                To you and Cagsil, I think by that definition of insane, everyone can be considered insane or previously insane. That is a wide open definition.

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually after I reread that it didn't make any sense.

                  "just expecting different outcomes with the same results."

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I meant it as doing the same things again and again while expectin different results. I think everyone has done that before if not currently doing it.

        2. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Einstein's definition of insanity- doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting to get different results. smile

    2. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently everyone's a climatologist because everyone is very sure of their own damn opinion on global warming (for or against), but I for one don't have one friggin' clue how to make sense of any of the data, models, and so on... guess everyone went and did a degree or two in climatology when I wasn't looking

    3. falcon64 profile image59
      falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nope... it couldn't. Our life experimentation has no chemical, no gadget, no apparatus, no formula to equate, no quantitative, no calculus to calculate, no differential to differentiate and support.

      1. Colebabie profile image61
        Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Psychology is a science. It is a soft science, but a science.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand that part. Science comes from thought. Thought can be considered psychology. So psychology comes before science. No?

          1. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think Cole means that science is not about all those external instruments. And I agree smile

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I kinda understand that, but there is still an arguement. If there is a scientist with personal agendas rather that finding truth, I think an external instrument of psychology is important to analyze if the scientist is telling the truth. A good example is global warming weighing out the truth from deceptive motives.

              1. Misha profile image76
                Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Nah, GW is not about science, it is about politics. Nothing is proven there because of the lack of data, so scientifically there is nothing to talk about yet. smile

                1. Colebabie profile image61
                  Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I disagree in reference to climate change. But I still love you Misha smile

                  1. Misha profile image76
                    Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Right back at ya ♥

                2. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree! But a lot of people will argue that as you already know. lol

                3. Sufidreamer profile image81
                  Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  There is some science concerning GW, but it is buried beneath a huge pile of opinionated and biased crap, from both sides. Sadly, people have difficulty in separating the science from the politics - the oil lobby and Gore are equally to blame.

                  To go back to the OP, IMO, everyone is not a scientist judging by the amount of half-assed pseudoscience available online smile

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    lol, You are partly right. I think there is a lot of misleading information online as well as anywhere else. I also think it adds balance.

                    If only the ones with science degrees could write about science, would it still be science?

        2. falcon64 profile image59
          falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          ya...I agreed. But if you wanted to become a Scientist. You must study more, to become a doctorate or otherwise on some field of Science.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think this is the illusion that is taught by society. "If you want to be something, you have to get a degree". Does title decide a persons knowledge or does their knowledge decide their title?

            1. falcon64 profile image59
              falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Both my dear...

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think you are wrong. Look into how the brain works. It's calculations are unmapped while mapping.

        1. falcon64 profile image59
          falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Would you say...any people can be a scientist without any knowledge? Our brain unmapped only if we are the one who mislead.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think everyone has knowledge, I just don't think everyone analyzes it to the same extent. The brain is unmapped in both science and philosophy, it's easy to get mislead when there are no directions or set boundaries.

            1. falcon64 profile image59
              falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              right...

    4. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, every person is not a scientist.  "Experimentation in life" does not equal the scientific method.  To truly be a scientist, one must gain knowledge by gathering data or evidence using principles of reason, then formulating and testing a hypothesis.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        People do that everyday in life. lol

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No, people observe and draw conclusions all the time but their conclusions are not based upon scientific method, so they are not scientists.  They are merely observers who think they know stuff.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What is the scientific method to draw a conclusion? Logical evidence to support the prediction or idea? People use logical evidence everyday in life to make decisions on the right choices to make. Everyone that claims to know anything is likely just merely an observer that thinks they know stuff, scientific degree or not.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
              Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this
              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                According to most of those definitions, a bet could be considered scientific. No?

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe not the 'bet', but the research behind why you decided to chose what your betting on...could be.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    lol Come on, you are nit picking. Ok, the information leading to the bet could be scientific. So the bet could be based on science. So, the scientific method could be considered a "bet", a theory could be considered a "bet". No?

            2. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              {{sigh}}  The scientific method is much more than just logical evidence to support the prediction or idea.  It is an established method of inquiry using specific principles of reasoning.  Read up on it if you want.  Or, just continue to think that everyone is a scientist.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                lol Are you offended that I think everyone is a scientist? There is science behind every thought put into action.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I'm not offended.  I guess I have to put a smiley face after everything.  smile

                  I'm just a little appalled at how many people don't seem to understand or appreciate the difference between junk knowledge and real knowledge.  It seems so prevalent these days. 

                  smile  smile  smile

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, Well Stated.

                    smile <---(almost forgot) smile

                  2. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    So the knowledge based on the "scientific method" is a good bet?

                    The knowledge based on assumptions without the "scientific method" is a bad bet?

                    Why is the scientific method so important to you? Is it absolute?

            3. Misha profile image76
              Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              http://hubpages.com/hub/what-science-is This will get you started smile

          2. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
            Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well Said.

            1. Colebabie profile image61
              Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The scientific method is pretty simple. And I still believe most people use it in some form during every day thinking to draw conclusions. Observation is a part of the scientific method.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, observation is part of the scientific method.

                1. Colebabie profile image61
                  Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  And the rest of the parts make up my thought process in a lot of situations. The scientific method, in its simplest form, is put into use by more than just scientists.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The original question was is every person a scientist, and I still say "no."

    5. Debby Bruck profile image87
      Debby Bruckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would say we all wear many hats. When we are cooking we are a chef, when writing an author, when investigating and researching we become a type of scientist. It may not be a "formal" scientist as in a "career" scientist. But, I believe these are different ways to identify what we do. Cool question.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Debby.

    6. free4india profile image61
      free4indiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am a scientist because I have figured out that
      F***
      F*CK
      F**K

      do all mean the same but only when one writes the whole word it is considered as 'dirty.'

    7. NewYorker profile image80
      NewYorkerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Technically no. Being a scientist is being an expert in the field of science.

      Life experience is not science.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol yes it is. Everyone and everything around you can be considered science including life experience. Life experience is trial and error, science is trial and error.

        1. NewYorker profile image80
          NewYorkerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No it's not.

          According to a dictionary:

          1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 
          2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
          3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
          4. systematized knowledge in general.
          5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
          6. a particular branch of knowledge.
          7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

          Nothing said about life.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            lol, Who wrote the definitions in the dictionary? They are not absolute. If they were absolute, it would likely only need 1 definition.

            Life knowledge can be used in every definition you provided. Does the dictionary have to specifically write something for you to believe it?

      2. falcon64 profile image59
        falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Agree...

      3. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed. At we least we can actual do that: agree to disagree.

        perhaps above all, these 'arguments' only add further proof that human logic/reason is limited to its own ideologies/interpretations.

        perhaps when we human beings realize this, we will achieve universal understanding...


        enjoy the days smile

    8. profile image61
      (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That depends. Some may very well indeed use a similar method in their daily lives, but most usually don't as the scientific method is not well known to many.

      Usually, it's the other way round from that method where many will reach a conclusion based on an observation and will form-fit evidence to support the conclusion despite facts to the contrary.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I bet you are thinking of religion in second part. lol
        I agree on that. I will also say that some scientist have form fitted evidence as well to support their conclusions. I think it happens on both sides. Some scientists use the religious method instead of the scientific method. lol

        1. profile image61
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          True, but their conclusions are quickly weeded out and refuted by other scientists through experimentation.



          Then, they aren't scientists, by definition.

    9. de'Arab profile image60
      de'Arabposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      hardly so , their experiences are not in a controlled  environment. Every scientist knows that all experiments should be controlled otherwise there would be  no conclusive find.

  2. Colebabie profile image61
    Colebabieposted 7 years ago

    In a way yes. And most people use the scientific method in everyday thought. smile

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Logic?

    2. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Based on my life experience, it's a HUGE overstatement smile

    3. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thats right! Thats exactly how I figured out you were a girl!big_smile

      1. Colebabie profile image61
        Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        How did you test that hypothesis?

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I charted your level of emotional attachment to the issues, you're a girl.big_smile

          1. Colebabie profile image61
            Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So having passion and being smart means a have a vagina... okay.

            1. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You have a what!? Don't say that word to me! It only reminds me of the crying I did on my wedding night!

              1. Colebabie profile image61
                Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                If that is true, it is sad.
                Oh yeah... VAGINA!

                1. profile image0
                  sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm Blind!!!!

          2. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Shouldn't you guy's bond? You are both conservatives? If you keep fighting, the liberals will get you. lol

            1. Colebabie profile image61
              Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Are you talking about me?

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Any liberals. Conservatives are usually paranoid that liberals are conspiring against them. Some do. lol

              2. profile image0
                sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                We are kinda twinish.smile

                1. Colebabie profile image61
                  Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Um.. no. I really don't think we could be any more different. smile

                  1. profile image0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you like taking showers?

                  2. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL
                    http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif

      2. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So the picture threw you?

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I was confused she has serious eyes but she does have a cute little nose.big_smile

    4. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...or the scientific method was stolen from everyday thought, the difference is in the controls of the experimentation and the careful control of variables...and the documentation...

  3. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Science is about a particular method. The vast majority of non-scientists have no idea about the method, let alone using it in processing their observations. So, the answer is no. smile

    1. Lita C. Malicdem profile image60
      Lita C. Malicdemposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      []

      To that I agree, Sir. Tinkering about anything, doesn't mean pursuing an experiment as educated scientists do. There has to be a hypothesis from which experiment starts, and through established method/s, coupled with careful intelligent research, the study moves on to prove or disprove it.

      Without a good inference to work on, there can be no method to use. Otherwise, experiments are simply that-tinkering.

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ever hear of the Darwin Awards? smile

        1. maven101 profile image79
          maven101posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Science is the search for truth...in that sense we are indeed, all scientists...

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            smile

          2. falcon64 profile image59
            falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            smilesmilesmile

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, I don't understand this and I disagree. lol
        First, how many years of college does a person have to have to be a scientist? What if the person goes to school for a degree in science and doesn't finish not getting his degree. Is he not a scientist because he didn't finish?

        You say there has to be a hypothesis from which the experiment starts. Was the hypothesis always there and did it come from no where? Which scientists get to start the hypothesis, the one with the most years of college or the one you think is more educated?

  4. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    since science is -in all essence- a ritual belief system, then yes.
    but some would argue and say no they are religious.

    parody.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Great point.

    2. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Science isn't a ritual belief. roll

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Cags, you know we could debate that all day, right. smile

        any 'practical.rational' scientist knows this. They have a set system of rules, equation, 'logical approach' that they apply to achieve some result. The parody is that mysticism does the same.

        science: the step & methods of discovery of a thing which is achieved by experimentation, hypothesis, theory, search, discovery, logical acceptance of said theory as proof of the existence/purpose of a thing until otherwise more concrete proof is found. a type of enlightenment.

        mysticism: the step and methods of discovery of a thing which is achieved by experimentation, hypothesis, theory, search, discovery, logical acceptance of said theory as proof of the existence/purpose of a thing until otherwise more concrete proof is found. a type of enlightenment.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Please refrain from putting mysticism in the same sentence as science. You disrespect the rest of humanity, when you do so.

          And, as far as bantering back and forth all day/night about this topic, would not happen. For the simple fact that I would beg to agree to disagree and you can go about doing whatever it is that you do. No less the wiser. Which is really a saddened fact to accept about any human being. But, in your case, I'll make an exception to the average person. Therefore, now I agree to disagree with you and good-bye. smile

  5. Colebabie profile image61
    Colebabieposted 7 years ago

    Yes Misha that is what I meant. Psychology is in a way the study of thought. So it isn't a matter of which comes first. smile

  6. thekidandblue profile image60
    thekidandblueposted 7 years ago

    We Are Scientists great band, just saying.

  7. profile image0
    R.G. San Ramonposted 7 years ago

    Science is a method...if you don't practice it, you're not a scientist.

    And just to make things clear, psychology is not just "thought", per se, but the scientific study of behavior and mental processes. Therefore, if you study behavior and mental processes, and not do it scientifically, you're not a psychologist.

    About scientists conflicting themselves with having intentions aside from finding the truth (which I have implied from marine's earlier statement), I have touched this topic in one of my hubs. Okay, this is not self-promoting, as my adsense is currently disabled, but it shows the difference.

    Here's the link: Is Psychology Value-Free?

  8. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    physicists are scientists, we cant all be scientists, get??

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, that was a horrible unscientific lack of an explanation, get??

      1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
        alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        science used method laboratory experiments in hard sciences isnt it and measurements too,

  9. Colebabie profile image61
    Colebabieposted 7 years ago

    I'm sorry I brought up the scientific method. I take it back!

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol no, it's good, it needed to be brought up.

  10. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    dreaming to be a scientist is a big crime

    1. Colebabie profile image61
      Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Then I am the wrong major...
      And I guess I should be arrested? hmm

  11. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    and we all know there is no absolute

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Are you sure of that? smile

      1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
        alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        as of this time yes, and my response is absolute, play of words

  12. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    well come on, we are not all scientist, are we playing with words or we are just pretenders, dreamers

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with this one too.

    2. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, we're posers.

    3. Colebabie profile image61
      Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously we are not all educated, experienced, certified, lab coat wearing, clipboard toting scientists. But are the thought processes similar? Maybe?

      1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
        alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        no, scientists conduct investigation either using statistical techniques for social scientists or lab techniques for hard core science,

        everyday life is not theory that you need to debunk always

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think everyday life is a constant theory. Do you know that you will be alive tomorrow?

          No, you do not! You use science to make a logical prediction that you will be around tomorrow. You make a bet. Science is a bet.

          1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
            alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            can you measure it like it is exact in a way

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, you could probably come up with some calculations of your chances to be alive tomorrow based on your health and other things. Like other science, this doesn't make the calculations absolute.

              1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
                alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                probably is not approximating..... science is not just a guess it is a good guess closest approximation

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  "not just a guess, but a "good guess" is still a "guess". Lot's of things can look close in an illusion. This doesn't mean they are.

                  1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
                    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    thats why there is no absolute

          2. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
            Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I understand what you mean but I think your use of the word 'bet' is confusing at best.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              If most in science don't claim absolute to always leave room for error, it is a bet if not absolute I think.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Like I said I understand now what you mean by the use, I just think there has to be a better word (a better way to describe it)

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I see what you are saying. I agree it is a little demeaning to the progression of knowledge through science by calling it a bet. Maybe a just a bad choice of words I used in the comparison. lol

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I can go with vaguely similar.  Maybe.  For some people.  wink

  13. Colebabie profile image61
    Colebabieposted 7 years ago

    "A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy."

    In the terms of the word, in a way we're all scientists.

    In terms of the profession... no.
    smile

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nicely Stated. and I agree

    2. alexandriaruthk profile image52
      alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      life and while we travel everyday life is not scietific and how we solve prob everyday

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        There is science to how your thoughts work. How is everyday life not a science? Do you go a day without thinking?

        1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
          alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          hey when you drink coffee or kiss your gf is it science

          1. Colebabie profile image61
            Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Of course. Science is involved. Digestion, the ingredients in the coffee. Then the enzymes in saliva, the emotions, the neurotransmitters being released.

            1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
              alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              are you consciously thinking of that, when you are doing those things

              1. Colebabie profile image61
                Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Probably not. Doesn't mean it isn't happening. And whatever you are thinking of is happening because of science. The ability to think is scientific.

  14. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    do we always use deductive or inductive in real life or both

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      sometimes we use instictual.

  15. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    we should stop pretending we are scientist or everyday living is science, love is not science we use it everyday

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There is science to love as well.

    2. Colebabie profile image61
      Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think anyone is pretending to be a scientist. Everyday living is possible because of science. Can everything be explained? Of course not.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You mean before science we were alive?

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
          Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this
  16. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    good night to all, I will dream I am a scientist

  17. akirchner profile image94
    akirchnerposted 7 years ago

    Yes I think everyone is a scientist - in the tiny particle of space called a life that they live in.  They figure out what cause and effect mean and they figure out what works and what doesn't - some do it better than others though it would seem.  Then all the other 'scientists' get to pass judgment pass or fail on all the other experiments all the other 'scientists' are doing - isn't that what life is?  I think we'd all do better sticking to our own science and leaving the others to conduct their own experiments and go on about our own biz though.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think you are right, majority rules. I don't think science should be held to an individual level. I think science plays a great part in the search of absolutes. I just think it is deceptive as well in many areas sharing a lot in common with religious faith in belief.

      How stupid would it be for every scientist to go around claiming they know nothing as absolute? How much money would that get them funded for their research? I don't think many people would pay them if they promoted to know nothing as absolute.

      The same with religion. I don't think religion would be very successful at drawing followers if they didn't claim to know any absolutes. If religion didn't claim any absolutes, it would have little to no power much like science.

  18. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    GN to all. Thanks for posting.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Good night Marine. smile

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Good Morning. Thanks to you and Cole for having open minds.

  19. Colebabie profile image61
    Colebabieposted 7 years ago

    That isn't what I meant but breathing is science. So I guess so.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'll go one better- consciousness is science. smile

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. An unmapped science. lol

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Breathing in and of itself isn't science, it is a bodily function, even though it may be 'scientific'. A study 'of' breathing would or could be science.

      1. Colebabie profile image61
        Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Pulmonology is a field of medicine. Medicine is science.

        I'm not quite sure what you mean.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
          Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Pulmonology is a science, the act of breathing is not pulmonology.

          adding is not a science, math is.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think that adding could be a science of math.

            I think there is science to breathing as well. If there was no science to understanding breathing, how would they know that we breathe out carbon dioxide?

  20. Colebabie profile image61
    Colebabieposted 7 years ago

    Adding is not a field of science. Yes I know what you're saying.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      smile

  21. waynet profile image48
    waynetposted 7 years ago

    Yes I am an scientist I tried making a pizza out of latex rubber melted down and chunks of zombie flesh for the tomatoes and meaty pizza, so I am an experimentor, whooo hoo!

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm reporting you to homeland security. It is illegal to use zombie flesh in your experiments unless you have a science degree. lol

      1. waynet profile image48
        waynetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh no...er I meant....halal chicken meat!

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol Ok, chicken it is. You aren't experimenting with bird flu are you?

          1. waynet profile image48
            waynetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Been there worn the t-shirt on to making a zombie virus, should be fun!

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Have you been selling those shirts on Ebay?

  22. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Sufi, I think this is my favorite part of the link.


    8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely
                 denying the existing explanation?
    This is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism. It is next to impossible to get creationists to offer an explanation for life (other than ``God did it''). Intelligent Design (ID) creationists have done no better, picking away at weaknesses in scientific explanations for difficult problems and offering in their stead. ``ID did it.'' This stratagem is unacceptable in science.

    10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?
    All scientists hold social, political and ideological beliefs that could potentially slant their interpretations of the data, but how do those biases and beliefs affect their research in practice? Usually during the peer-review system, such biases and beliefs are rooted out, or the paper or book is rejected.

    And this one to those that said psychology isn't important in science.

  23. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    there are social scientists isnt it and exact science and applied science, hard core sciences

  24. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I hope Maurice Strong doesn't send his troops after me. lol

  25. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    Whilst I love CSI, it has probably led to more incorrect convictions than dodgy lawyers.

    I fully agree with you about the portrayal of science as absolute - partly due to the media and politicians, partly due to some scientists, that is a common misperception. Sadly, most of this is due to the decline of philosophy - a scientist should read Karl Popper, at the very least, but many are not exposed to this.

    Going back to your original post, too many people comment about science without understanding. Off the top of my head, I remember a Free Market proponent stating that we should not have fishing quotas because the invisible hand, and supply and demand, would prevent overfishing. Sadly, fish do not understand economics and refuse to comply with the Austrian School, but I could not be bothered arguing the case because it would have fallen upon deaf ears. sad

    As for GW - I walked out of 'An Inconvenient Truth' after 15 minutes. I lean towards man-made GW, but about 60 - 40 - More good research is needed as to whether climate change is natural or anthropomorphic. I would rather resources be spent upon preparation for rising sea levels, rather than fiddling about with carbon trading.

    The Dutch are building up their dykes, and they know a thing or two about sea-levels big_smile

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "I remember a Free Market proponent stating that we should not have fishing quotas because the invisible hand, and supply and demand, would prevent overfishing."

      What do you mean here?

      1. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I was told that we should not institute fishing quotas because supply and demand would take care of everything. As fish became scarcer, the higher price would ensure that fewer people would buy fish and that stocks would recover. That makes some economic sense.

        Unfortunately, fish stocks usually have a point of no return - once the numbers decline below a certain level, stocks rarely recover. History and fisheries research both show that, sadly. Economic sense does not always guarantee scientific sense, and vice versa.

        I am from a town where that happened and there is now no fishing industry, nor will there ever be sad

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, so the quotas would have added balance from everyone fishing at once? I admit, I am pretty clueless on fish although I have started taking a fish oil supplement. lol
          Why can't they breed fish and bring them in? To simplify things, lack of politics/regulation killed the fish?

          1. Sufidreamer profile image81
            Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Hehe - my dissertation was about fish oils!

            Weak politicians, political lobbying and poor regulation were responsible, as were social factors. If a fisherman has taken on hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to buy a fishing boat, then he will continue to fish for as long as possible. The nature of fish stocks, spread over such a huge expanse of ocean, means that it is very difficult for them to recover.

            As for the breeding, to cut as long story short: Fish such as Atlantic Salmon can be restocked, but they are carnivorous and the feed comes from anchovies, putting more pressure on those stocks and simply moving the problem elsewhere.

            Restocking is difficult - marine fish larvae are tiny and very difficult to grow. My dissertation was about that exact thing, finding a marine food source of live food that has the correct balance of fatty acids and oils and is the correct size. There has been some progress (I have a Norwegian friend working with Halibut), but it will be many years before we can grow fish at the rate needed, if at all.

            I am not trying to destroy free-marketism, just make the observation that it does not have all of the answers when faced with reality smile

  26. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    I think the subtext of this thread is to suggest that nonscientists' observations and conclusions are as valid as scientific observations.  While this can be true, if I had to make an important decision that would affect the future of the planet, I would rely on science more than personal observations of non-scientists.

    But, then, I don't believe every person is a scientist.  smile

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol, I don't think it matters if you believe it or not. You don't believe it because you have faith it's not correct. How scientific is that?  You can't logically prove how everyone is not a scientist, so you use faith that only some are scientists.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Okay ....  Even though I've read your paragraph several times, it makes no sense to me.  Perhaps your scientific conclusion based upon observable, measurable data and experimentation that can be replicated by others is beyond my limited cognitive abilities.  smile

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol No, I think it's that way because thats how you want to see it. It is only logical to not rule out the possibility of everyone being a scientist through faith without explanation or evidence. Shouldn't most good science in search of absolutes be more based on things than can be ruled out rather than everything that can be ruled in? How can you rule it out that not everyone is a scientist?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Quick answer, since I have to leave for work.  I've never mentioned absolutes -- that's your thing. 

            As far as "ruling out" that not everyone is a scientist, it would depend on your definition of scientist.  In the definition that I personally accept, not everyone is a scientist.  I suppose in your very loose definition of science, everyone is. 

            We could debate the definition, I suppose, but I don't see much point in that.  I just think we have to be careful about accepting that just because someone has an idea or opinion based upon their personal observation that it is just as valid as one based on scientific observation.

            Have a good day, marine.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You have a good day as well. We will talk about your definition of science when you return. lol
              How can a definition of science be absolute when most scientists don't believe in absolutes?
              Do you have the absolute definition of science?
              I never said that anyones idea is as valid as a specifically educated persons in that field. I am simply stating that neither is absolute meaning neither should be ruled out.
              Take care.

              1. prettydarkhorse profile image61
                prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                you ok marine?? morning

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Good morning. I am ok I think. How are you?

                  1. prettydarkhorse profile image61
                    prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    good, is your baby ok too?

  27. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Is the main controversy that it takes a degree to be titled a scientist? I don't think it takes a degree.

  28. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Sufi, you made me think about something. In court cases, wouldn't it make more sense for a jury to be given a class on logic and fallacies to find the truth of what evidence and lawyers say?

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would love to see that, as lawyers are amongst the worst offenders - Appeals to emotion, appeals to authority and strawmen abound. Sadly, I cannot see it happening - you also have 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt.' I never fully understood what that is smile

      Maybe we should have a Fallacy Awareness Test before being allowed to post on the HP forums big_smile

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol, Then maybe none of us would be here. I'm sure we have all contradicted ourselves before on here. I do agree though, some do it much more often than others.

        Maybe beyond reasonable doubt attempts to explain the majority decision in search of an absolute.

  29. thirdmillenium profile image60
    thirdmilleniumposted 7 years ago

    My friends and I eons ago, watered a plant only with urine and the poor thing went off circulation in 10 days. Does it make us zoologists?

  30. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    Marine, I read through all of the responses since I left this morning and have concluded there really is no point in my continuing the discussion.  As Cags said, let's just agree to disagree.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think you put it backwards. I think you disagree to agree. lol

  31. Greg Cremia profile image60
    Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago

    I wish everyone learned from life's experiences. He!! I wish half the people would learn from life's experiences. Heck, if just a few would learn the world would be a much better place.

  32. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Why don't you walk the talk and start a new trend? wink

  33. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    So everyone is or is not a scientist?

  34. Dr. Larkin profile image60
    Dr. Larkinposted 7 years ago

    Everyone except David Hasselhoff.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know, he is obviously a smart man...have you seen the women he works with on bay watch?  And how they dress....  hmm

  35. dipless profile image87
    diplessposted 7 years ago

    For me a scientist is someone who requires and demands rigerous proofs built on known assumptions. A hypothisis is just tahat until tested and varified.

  36. thisisoli profile image57
    thisisoliposted 7 years ago

    I wouldn't say everyone was a scientist, since to really become a scientist you have to spend years upon years learning everything about a single subject!

  37. profile image0
    StormRyderposted 7 years ago

    I wouldn't say scientists...maybe more like explorers??

 
working