Everyone is a scientist now

[Harryprice]

Scientists tend to be portrayed as nerds or nutters in drama. Politcians ignore what they say and, along with big companies, control their grants. Who'd want to be a scientist?

Quite a lot of people, it seems. People are constantly popping up with strange ideas which they claim are scientific. The unsaid implication is that they are 'scientists'. Though they've never been trained as one. Or worked as one. Or had a paper published. Or pretty much done anything that a scientist would do. They also show an alarming lack of scientific knowledge.

It seems that all you need to do to be a scientist these days is to say you're one. And it helps if you have a strange theory with little or no evidence to support it.

[Croydon Bob]

It seems that all you need to do to be a scientist these days is to say you're one. And it helps if you have a strange theory with little or no evidence to support it.

And here's a classic example from today's news:

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article...2&in_page_id=2

[Cuddles]

Yes, it's rather odd really. Many people seem to spend half their time insulting science and scientists and coming up with all kinds of conspiracy theories about us, but then spend the rest of their time pretending to be scientists.

[saoir]

Scientists tend to be portrayed as nerds or nutters in drama. Politcians ignore what they say and, along with big companies, control their grants. Who'd want to be a scientist?

Quite a lot of people, it seems. People are constantly popping up with strange ideas which they claim are scientific. The unsaid implication is that they are 'scientists'. Though they've never been trained as one. Or worked as one. Or had a paper published. Or pretty much done anything that a scientist would do. They also show an alarming lack of scientific knowledge.

It seems that all you need to do to be a scientist these days is to say you're one. And it helps if you have a strange theory with little or no evidence to support it.

I have to say I haven't come across this new phenomena myself much, though I would be interested in hearing more about the cases you describe.

The only real culprit in this, for me, tends to be the media who assign labels of "scientist" freely and without question, as in the case quoted above in the Metro where there is no evidence the actual researchers make the claim being assigned to them by the daft journalist.

We only have to look at the whole field of psychology for a collective delusion of being scientists.

[Harryprice]

We only have to look at the whole field of psychology for a collective delusion of being scientists.

Meaning what?

[DrS]

psychologists are deluded if they think they are scientists?

[saoir]

psychologists are deluded if they think they are scientists?

Indeed yes they are. In what way are they doing science ?

[Harryprice]

Indeed yes they are. In what way are they doing science ?

You are the one with the claim, not me. Why is psychology not scientific, in your view?

[DrS]

Indeed yes they are. In what way are they doing science ?

Oh for heaven's sake. I was summarizing YOUR view. Can you not even tell that?

NB: there is a question mark at the end of the last sentence above. As there was in my previous post.

[saoir]

Psychology, like many areas of human study, is a collection of empirical studies of human behavior, full of a multitude of wide ranging theories where some elements of science is applied from time to time. This multitude of theories are developed, by practitioners, that no one can refute or prove though tested measurable experiments as in Physics or Chemistry or Biology.
At it's core everyone is mentally ill to some extent, and no one is fully normal.

Psychologists talk of being scientists but neither their methodology nor their practice is scientific in nature. There is some science taking place in psychology but psychology is not a science.

[Croydon Bob]

Psychology, like many areas of human study, is a collection of empirical studies of human behavior, full of a multitude of wide ranging theories where some elements of science is applied from time to time. This multitude of theories are developed, by practitioners, that no one can refute or prove though tested measurable experiments as in Physics or Chemistry or Biology.
At it's core everyone is mentally ill to some extent, and no one is fully normal.

Psychologists talk of being scientists but neither their methodology nor their practice is scientific in nature. There is some science taking place in psychology but psychology is not a science.

Firstly I don't accept the premise that one is false and the other true. In science we work through stages of discovery with different viewpoints, depending on the evidence.
How do we distinguish between one group and another ? I believe what I said in my first post:"So for me, as a trained scientist, it is important to look at the scientific claims in question - assess the broad assertions from all sides - and look at where the direct replicated evidence points. That, for me, is where my trust is directed for the moment."


That is where I fundamentally disagree. And I am not just talking about global warming. Same with other areas from dietary advice to distraction of mobile phones. I would never ever go with the majority view because I know how flawed that approach has been over the decades. If I am to come down on any one side I must be prepared to look into it somewhat, as I write above. If I cannot be bothered to do so then I must be prepared to hold no view. The trouble is a lot of people have a problem doing that.


I fundamentally disagree. Consensus science is anathema to scientific principles and taking action based on a consensus is daft in my opinion. No offense intended.

You hold contradictory opinions in different threads.

A sceptical person might conclude that you are just trolling.

[Harryprice]

Psychology, like many areas of human study, is a collection of empirical studies of human behavior, full of a multitude of wide ranging theories where some elements of science is applied from time to time. This multitude of theories are developed, by practitioners, that no one can refute or prove though tested measurable experiments as in Physics or Chemistry or Biology.

I notice you say 'practioner'. Are you refering to people like psychoanalysts who would be disowned by most academic psychologists?

At it's core everyone is mentally ill to some extent, and no one is fully normal.

Not psychology. Psychiatry is about defining and treating so-called mental 'disorders' which are defined using symptoms because mechanisms are largely unknown.

Psychologists talk of being scientists but neither their methodology nor their practice is scientific in nature. There is some science taking place in psychology but psychology is not a science.

Human behaviour covers a wide spectrum. Given that limitation, psychologists can still characterise behaviour experimentally using statistical methods. There are countless psychological studies that reveal reproducible generalities about human behaviour. It is perfectly possible to study the subject scientifically and many researchers do so.

[Admin]

psychologists are deluded if they think they are scientists?

Indeed yes they are. In what way are they doing science ?

Well it seems that you have a false idea of what a psychologist is; but...

Generally speaking, psychologists engage in theory building which is based on accumulating evidence (hypothesis testing through observation/experimentation), which is published in peer-reviewed journals etc...

In other words: building theories based on evidence; and which are testable/falsifiable. Which is a good, concise description of a science!

Psychology may get less precise results than other science disciplines but that's because the subject matter (the human mind/behaviour) is more difficult than, say, measuring reaction rates or product yields in test tubes.

I've done degrees in chemistry and (nearly finished ) psychology and I can honestly say, when it comes to scientific methodology, it's psychology that teaches more science!

Yes, there are still psychoanalysts who are called psychologists, but they are no longer mainstream and mainstream degrees these days do not cover the topic in much detail - if at all.

But mainstream psychology is scientific; even if its image is tainted by 'pop-psychologists' in the media.

[MischiefMonkey]

I learned more about the scientific method and statistics in 'A' level Psychology than I did in 'A' level Math or 'O' Level Chemistry, Physics or Biology.

Perhaps I had an amazing Psychology teacher, perhaps because Psychology deals with the human mind it needs to be more rigorous at 'A' Level standard.

[saoir]

I notice you say 'practioner'. Are you refering to people like psychoanalysts who would be disowned by most academic psychologists?

No I was referring to psychologists.

Not psychology. Psychiatry is about defining and treating so-called mental 'disorders' which are defined using symptoms because mechanisms are largely unknown.

Yes psychology. My sister is a psychology lecturer in a small university and I am familiar with her work through discussion and visits to her classes and tutorials. Interesting and important, but not science.

Human behaviour covers a wide spectrum. Given that limitation, psychologists can still characterise behaviour experimentally using statistical methods.

The fact that they do, at times, use statistical methods does not mean it is a science.

There are countless psychological studies that reveal reproducible generalities about human behaviour. It is perfectly possible to study the subject scientifically and many researchers do so.

Reproducible generalities does not make it a science. Yes it is possible to apply some scientific principles to studying some elements of psychology but that does not make Psychology a science, or anything near it.

We are too willing to accept this 'scientification' of all kinds of study nowadays without being rigorous enough about it.