The problem with “scientist” job titles

1/ From titles like “data scientist” to “scientist”. This madness doesn’t end here.
We also have grades
– senior scientist
– principal scientist
– scientist I
– scientist II

Labelling researchers was intended for salary. Now the… “my dad is a scientist” is a job description.

2/ Darwin, was not a scientist. He was described as a naturalist, geologist, biologist etc.
Newton was not a scientist. He was described as mathematician, physicist, astronomer etc.
There is not any certification for becoming a “scientist”. At least, not among adults.

3/ Who is a botanist any more? Not cool. You’re not a mathematician or a statistician but … a scientist. The coolest kid in town is a “scientist”.

4/ The hubris:
1. The more we over-specialise the more general titles we claim. Do you specialise on a specialised specialty? You’re a scientist!
2. The more we reject metaphysics, the more metaphysical claims we make (“scientist” is a metaphysical title, like “priest”. ).

5/ For more context & inspiration. “Will Save Science in America or Go Down Swinging”.

Comments
At least “analyst” was a bit more humble. It implied some sort of special task. Even “data science”, ok, let’s say it englobes all scientific fields around data. But when a biologist is presented as “a scientist” I get goosebumps.


Source

The problem with “belief in science”

“I believe in science” A mental level of 5-year olds is spreading among the elites. PhD holders, academic authors, and google executives “believe in science”, have as higher purpose in life to “be kind” and think about “world peace”. The poopoos of intellectualism.

Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, with a Constitution on Sharia law (including flogging and stoning). Here, AJ+ dances with the liberal songs, promoting a summit (made by bankers, google etc.) w/ a Hollywood star against “people who don’t believe in science”.

Plato, the Bible & the Enlightenment have all something in common: they revisit the belief in God & divine as source of wisdom and explicitly teach SKEPTICISM in human nature & the profane (source of sin). René Descartes didn’t “believe” in the science of his time.

According to Google trends, the phrase “believe in science” appeared in spikes, and was recently normalised, picked in 2017.


Source

Anachronisms

Dawkins spent his career pretending he doesn’t understand anachronism. A clown of an atheist circus quoting Old Testament against… Christianity. In his mental salads the humanistic christian morality is just a logical standard. Now he understands anachronism!… wait… what?

Anachronism à la carte! All those who condemn & criticise christianity are the same who later criticise Athens based on… christian morality! They’re not crazy. They pretend they don’t understand how history works and how christian religion revolutionised western humanism.

In every topic scientific or philosophical we need standards. Hypocrites constantly change standards. They criticise Old Testament (or Athens) using morality that Byzantines (=christianity) introduced (e.g. women’s rights) AND they criticise Byz using modernity as standard!

We have:
– “hard sciences” called STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)
– social sciences & liberal arts / humanities (e.g. literature, history)

Scientism is the false belief that only the “scientific method” (experiments) reveals the important truths in life.


Source

Nuance in science

The butchers of science and philosophy, with naive mono-parametric statistics reaching maximalisations. The “games don’t affect violence” is equally BS with the “games cause violence”. The “IQ is the cause of success” is equally BS with the “IQ is not affecting success”.

Humans build systems, embedded in complex network of causal relationships. Science needs surgical knifes (nuance, polyparametric, longterm, fat tails) while our butchers talk on “religion”, “violence”, “crime”, “IQ” in black & white charts. Either you “have it” or not.

VIDEO GAMES AFFECT SOCIAL OUTCOMES. The keyword here is not “violence”. There are documented negative effects on aggression & prosocial behaviour, particularly in men. Why? It’s complex! We don’t know in what level this is affecting the society in the longterm.

To understand the methodological errors of the “butchers of science” (evolutionary BS vendors) lets compare with a real science: medicine. If we study “all cancer patients” and give them Chlorambucil (chemotherapy) we will find no correlation, no health outcome.

So we divide cancer in types. Nuance! In certain types we test certain chemical agents. Nuance! And… there is a correlation between Hodgkin lymphoma & Chlorambucil. Nuance! If we tested “drugs” & “cancer” in general, this would not be science, it would be “social science”.