NationStates Jolt Archive

With all the debate over science and related topics on here, I've gotten curious about how many people are, or are committed to becoming, professional scientists. "Committed to being" means that you are currently at a university as an upper-class science major (junior or senior) or graduate student. By professional scientist, I mean that you are currently working in the field of one of the physical sciences (astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)

If you fit the bill, please satisfy my nosiness and tell a little about yourself. For instance:

I'm a graduate student (let's just say "advanced" :)) in a biological field and intend to keep on going until I've either completed a post-doc or keeled over dead from trying.

Yourself?

First year biochemist at the University of Manchester. Three of my four A-levels were chemistry, physics and biology.

Career wise, I live for science.

Despite being a high-school student I have recently taken to calling myself an "amateur scientist".

Second year (undergrad) Engineering physics major, pursuing a second degree in mathematics.

Humanities Graduate. I really regret not reading the sciences, but my maths just wasn't up to it.

I am a second year graduate student in Cell and Molecular Biology.

I also intend to go as far as I can towards becoming a tenured professor someday. But am not willing to sacrifice my entire life to do so. I'll see how far I can make it.

Well... I'm taking Honors Physics. Does that count?

im planning on majoring in some type of science probably medical once i get to college so far im a junior and i have done 2 college level science courses

Well... I'm taking Honors Physics. Does that count?

Not for this particular question, really (see the criteria above). I'm mostly interested in finding out who has a solid background in the physical sciences at a university upper class level and beyond. Still a good thing you're doing it, IMO, and I hope you do well at it... don't get me wrong.

I'm a senior studying physics at a university.

First year (undergrad) in Geosciences at the University of Leeds. My A-levels were chemistry physics and maths, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to continue on this way.

I'm supposed to start working on my masters thesis in physics and information sciences, but am currently more occupied with subjects in various other disciplines to broaden my horizons - as well as earning a living.

Bumptonium

First year physics at the University of Paisley.

First year physics at the University of Paisley.

I respect your bravery in the face of overwhelming mathematics. :)

Me, I made it through one semester of calculus and then did biostats. I can do higher math, but it does give me a headache from hell after a couple of hours.

I respect your bravery in the face of overwhelming mathematics. :)

Me, I made it through one semester of calculus and then did biostats. I can do higher math, but it does give me a headache from hell after a couple of hours.
Ditto, this is the last time I take a maths elective.Too damn hard. :(

By professional scientist, I mean that you are currently working in the field of one of the physical sciences (astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)

Why does your definition of professional scientist include only students of the physical sciences?

Why does your definition of professional scientist include only students of the physical sciences?

I personally think it is fairer to allow everyone who relies on the scientific method for most of his/her research[1] - but I assume the topic starter has a reason.

[1] Yes, I realise this still leaves quite a few university studies out..

Despite being a high-school student I have recently taken to calling myself an "amateur scientist".

Same here. Right now I'm planning on getting a Masters in either Chemistry or Chemical Engineering, with possibly a minor in Biology or Environmental Science.

I'm a biochemistry and genetics student in my first year at aberystwyth university.

one of the few, the proud and the highly employable!

I personally think it is fairer to allow everyone who relies on the scientific method for most of his/her research[1]

I agree. It seems the point of the question has something to do with debates over scientific method and theory-building (e.g. "intelligent design"). Seemingly, we want to know who has advanced credentials in relevant fields. And certainly social scientists have as much education in scientific methodology as physical scientists... if not more, in fact, because in the social sciences it is so much more difficult to construct falsifiable hypotheses and meaningful theories without wandering off-track. We are taught to be ever-vigilant, I think, to a degree that is not usually necessary in physical sciences in which the variables themselves behave in a way that makes operationism natural, rather than forced.

Perhaps that is why it is physical scientists such as Michael Behe who have lost their way to propose intelligent design in the first place? I don't know of any social scientists preaching "proof" of the existence of God!

Incidentally, I am a Ph.D. student in political science.

but I assume the topic starter has a reason.

Probably just prejudice against social scientists as "not real scientists." The problem is that our variables are much more difficult to isolate, often contradictory, and possibly not even coherent in themselves. That makes the task of "scientifically" studying society and the human individual a much more difficult task, it seems to me, than studying atoms, stars, or blood-vessels.

Plus, we have to deal with the fact that our subject-matter is constantly reading our research, and the possibility always exists that our object of study may simply say, "you think I behave like that? Well, watch this!"

Plucking a meaningful science out of that mess is a difficult task, indeed. The fact that some of us actually manage to say anything interesting at all should be a credit to our field. Hence, this ubiquitous prejudice is quite simply baffling to me.

Why does your definition of professional scientist include only students of the physical sciences?

Because I'm specifically looking for people who have a background in the physical sciences.

I'm a fourth year physics student.

Though I don't think I'm going to grad school. If I do, it will be after working for a bit, I'm burnt out as it is.

Edit: What's with all the physics majors here? My school's only got like 15 people in the programme in my year and there seem to be more physicists than anyone else responding.

Because I'm specifically looking for people who have a background in the physical sciences.

That was obvious enough, thank you.

But why not say "professional physical scientists"? Why insist that "by professional scientist" you "mean" physical scientists?

Also, why ask about just the physical sciences in the first place, if your question is about who has a background in scientific methodology? There seems no reason for narrowing the search. If you have some other, specifically physical, concern... say so.

I agree. It seems the point of the question has something to do with debates over scientific method and theory-building (e.g. "intelligent design"). Seemingly, we want to know who has advanced credentials in relevant fields. And certainly social scientists have as much education in scientific methodology as physical scientists... if not more, in fact, because in the social sciences it is so much more difficult to construct falsifiable hypotheses and meaningful theories without wandering off-track. We are taught to be ever-vigilant, I think, to a degree that is not usually necessary in physical sciences in which the variables themselves behave in a way that makes operationism natural, rather than forced.

My wife is an anthropologist who has spoken at Oxford and the United Nations (the real one, not the NS version). But in this instance, I'm specifically looking for people who are knowledgeable about the physical sciences.

Perhaps that is why it is physical scientists such as Michael Behe who have lost their way to propose intelligent design in the first place? I don't know of any social scientists preaching "proof" of the existence of God!

Neither has Michael Behe... but his problem as far as it goes is that he tries to work outside of his discipline.

Probably just prejudice against social scientists as "not real scientists." The problem is that our variables are much more difficult to isolate, often contradictory, and possibly not even coherent in themselves. That makes the task of "scientifically" studying society and the human individual a much more difficult task, it seems to me, than studying atoms, stars, or blood-vessels.

But those are the people I was trying to find, your opinions aside. I mentioned the physical sciences because I'm specifically looking for people who, like myself, are involved with the physical sciences, in part because there have been several "debates" on this board that were specifically about things like chemistry, evolutionary biology, thermodynamics, etc.

That was obvious enough, thank you.

But why not say "professional physical scientists"? Why insist that "by professional scientist" you "mean" physical scientists?

Also, why ask about just the physical sciences in the first place, if your question is about who has a background in scientific methodology? There seems no reason for narrowing the search. If you have some other, specifically physical, concern... say so.

I did say that I was looking for people with a background in the physical sciences, and my question was about people who have a background in the physical sciences, not just in scientific methodology.

What I wrote was:

"With all the debate over science and related topics on here, I've gotten curious about how many people are, or are committed to becoming, professional scientists. "Committed to being" means that you are currently at a university as an upper-class science major (junior or senior) or graduate student. By professional scientist, I mean that you are currently working in the field of one of the physical sciences (astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)"

I did, in fact, define my terms. I don't know why you didn't see that...

My wife is an anthropologist who has spoken at Oxford and the United Nations (the real one, not the NS version). But in this instance, I'm specifically looking for people who are knowledgeable about the physical sciences.

That's great... but you still haven't told me why.

I mentioned the physical sciences because I'm specifically looking for people who, like myself, are involved with the physical sciences, in part because there have been several "debates" on this board that were specifically about things like chemistry, evolutionary biology, thermodynamics, etc.

Okay... and what would geologists, astronomers, and other non-related physical scientists have to do with these debates?

It seems to me that you cast your net either too broad (including physical sciences that have no relation to what interests you) or too narrow (you are not interested in social scientists who may in fact be experts in scientific methodology or the related field of the philosophy of science).

I'm going to stop complaining now, however, as I don't want to be accused of a "hijack" and the topic is simply not that interesting to me.

I simply wanted to point out that I think you may have chosen your words because of a kind of prejudice, your wife's career notwithstanding.

By professional scientist, I mean that you are currently working in the field of one of the physical sciences (astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)"

I did, in fact, define my terms. I don't know why you didn't see that...

I certainly did. My complaint has been that your definition of "professional scientists" comes off as insulting toward social scientific professionals.

That's great... but you still haven't told me why.



Okay... and what would geologists, astronomers, and other non-related physical scientists have to do with these debates?

Well, the debates have been about things like supposed evidence for design based upon perceived violations of the second law of thermodynamics, geological strata, etc. I'm not sure how those wouldn't be related.

I simply wanted to point out that I think you may have chosen your words because of a kind of prejudice, your wife's career notwithstanding.

Your thought has been duly noted.

Well, the debates have been about things like supposed evidence for design based upon perceived violations of the second law of thermodynamics, geological strata, etc.

Yet they have been equally, if not more, concerned with what "counts" as "science." For this reason, I fail to understand why you are not concerned with who has expertise in any scientific field.

All of this could have been avoided had you titled the thread "Physical Scientist Check-In." I would never have bothered to look!

Instead, you wrote "Scientist Check-In" and led me to believe that this was a thread for all scientists. Then it turns out that you have your own idea about who counts as a scientist.

Anyway, I'm done here. (Ironically, I'm off to continue a paper in which I criticize my field for failing to understand their role as scientists.)

Probably just prejudice against social scientists as "not real scientists." The problem is that our variables are much more difficult to isolate, often contradictory, and possibly not even coherent in themselves. That makes the task of "scientifically" studying society and the human individual a much more difficult task, it seems to me, than studying atoms, stars, or blood-vessels.
I think it's those difficulties - the lack of precision, consistency and exact repeatability of experiments - which lead some to question whether social sciences are real science.

But, regardless of that, most people understand the word "scientist" on its own to mean physical scientist, just as most people, for example, understand "Catholic" to mean Roman Catholic, as opposed to all the other "Catholic" churches around. It's not intended to be insulting.

For the record, I'm not a (physical) scientist - I'm a History graduate and computer scientist, but I've become a keen reader of science (especially evolution) in recent years.

2nd year Economics...but I'm not sure whether one could call that "science"...;)

With all the debate over science and related topics on here, I've gotten curious about how many people are, or are committed to becoming, professional scientists. "Committed to being" means that you are currently at a university as an upper-class science major (junior or senior) or graduate student. By professional scientist, I mean that you are currently working in the field of one of the physical sciences (astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)

If you fit the bill, please satisfy my nosiness and tell a little about yourself. For instance:

I'm a graduate student (let's just say "advanced" :)) in a biological field and intend to keep on going until I've either completed a post-doc or keeled over dead from trying.

Yourself?

I fall between the cracks here.

I have a degree in physics. But I am not in a scientific field. I'm in an offshoot of physics-- physical comedy. :)

"An object at rest...CANNOT BE STOPPED!" -Evil Midnight Bomber(what bombs at midnight)

I think it's those difficulties - the lack of precision, consistency and exact repeatability of experiments - which lead some to question whether social sciences are real science.


Social science does not necessarily suffer form a lack of precision and consistency. For instance, I'm currently working on a paper for a comparative politics class on the electoral systems of Switzerland and Germany; sitting on my desk is a stack of precise election results and related statistics and data.

I think the problem is that people are confused about what exactly social science is. For example, I study political science, and it seems to me that most people confuse "political science" with "politics." Naturally, people wonder how it is possible to quantify and measure things like political ideology and beliefs, and thus conclude that political science must be some kind of pseudo-science. But, again taking the example of the electoral data I'm using in my paper, it is entirely possible to study issues in politics within the context of measureable and quantifiable data. (On a side note, I especially can't stand it when people, upon learning that I study political science, immediately ask me "so, are you going to be a politician when you graduate?" This seems to me like asking a medical student "so, are you going to be gonorrhea when you graduate?" Again, such questions are generally the result of a lack of knowledge as to the actual nature of political and social science.)

Social science does present problems when it comes to repeatable experimentation, however, these are not problems that are somehow unique to the social sciences; all of the sciences, physical sciences included, have these problems. To somehow conclude that social science is invalid because of such problems is unfair.

The key problems in regard to experimentation are those of practicality and ethics.

Practicality - As a political scientist, I could be interested in studying the effects of political revolution in a particular society. The problem occurs, however, when I go into this society and say, "OK, start a revolution!" Most people are likely to ignore me, and go about their normal lives. Social science involves the study of human beings, and human beings are prone to doing their own thing. Thus, as a social scientist, I must rely on statistical and comparative analysis in order to control the variables, as required by the scientific method, after the fact (yes, my very first political science lecture was on the scientific method!!! :eek: :headbang: :D ).

Ethics - Indeed, I think that out of all the sciences, social science presents the most serious ethical problems; if I were to conduct a controlled experiment to study the effects of revolution, my "lab rats" would necessarily be human beings. It is entirely possible for the social sciences to construct reproducible controlled experiments. However, most of us naturally recoil at the implications of human experimentation on such a grand scale. But again, all of the sciences present serious ethical problems. And just as other sciences have found ways to deal with these issues, the social sciences have and continue to develop ways to conduct study, according to the scientific method, in an ethical way. This development may be slow, and may appear confused; we simply need to keep in mind that because the problem is particularly severe in the social sciences, it will take more effort and time to develop solutions. This does not mean that solutions do not exist.

I wouldn't mind being a historian that works out at actualy places, and digs and all that fun stuff if my other career plan doesn't work out. If that counts?

Three years at University in Leicester, on a Chemistry Degree program. Currently working in a lab, in the environmental chemistry side of things.