Obtaining a PhD involves original research that adds to knowledge. By your definition, someone with a PhD is automatically a scientist.(Original post by RainbowMan)
A scientist is someone who's a researcher and therefore adds to our knowledge of the world (not necessarily the natural world btw, social scientists can be, though they are often not, actual scientists in this regard).
That would distinguish a layman, namely, someone who's only reading about science, someone who might even be quite knowledgeable about a scientific topic from an actual scientist who builds upon pre-existing research and knowledge to generate new ideas in a scientific discipline. So long as you publish your scientific work in journals and books, you're a scientist. If you only read about science and don't actually do it, you're not a scientist.
My definition might exclude maths and physics teachers and I'm ok with that.
P.S. Having a PhD doesn't make you a scientist. Working in a university doesn't necessarily make you a scientist. And certainly having a n undergrad degree in mathematics or physics or chemistry doesn't make you a scientist.
At what point would you consider yourself a Scientist? Watch
- 13-02-2017 01:50
- 13-02-2017 05:29
- 13-02-2017 05:58
When you can handle electricity in a seemingly dangerous manner to impress people.
- 13-02-2017 15:23
- 13-02-2017 15:31
Anyone who is using the scientific process [look it up, if necessary] is, while doing so, a scientist regardless of their qualifications and profession. This can mean schoolchildren, students, the man in the street, anyone.
To be a professional scientist you would need qualifications and experience, but that is a different question.