Bad science?

I think shraf's definition is too specific. I don't think developing theory should be required to call oneself a scienitist.One of the things I'm working on today is determining how much acid neutralizer is required to neutralize various doses of acidic chemicals. The information will be presented like: if you've got a dose of X acid chemical, you'll need to add Y of the acid neutralizer. I'm not developing any new theory or anything, but I am doing science. And I'm getting paid to do it. For this reason, I call myself a scienitist. This seems a litle too braod in my opinion because you can follow the scienitific method in your everyday life to figure little things out. Like, the little bit of algebra I use in the supermarket to find the best price on a food item doesn't make me a mathematician, 'naw-mean?

What would you call a person who uses the scientific method properly in their work but isn't developing and testing theory?I think your definition should be:What makes a person a scientist, I think, is that they use the scientific method properly in their work, and if their main occupation is developing and testing theory.That's about how I define it.

Well, I've never heard of a 'skilled experimenter' and I don't think there's any jobs out there with that title. Sounds like you just made up a term, but I did ask what would you call it, so thats cool.In my experience, a technician would be someone who prepares the samples for testing and does instrument upkeep and "the dishes". But I guess since I do all of that too, I could be considered a technician with additional responsibilities, i.e. actually performing the experiments. But, usually, the tech is there to help out but not really do the actual work.

Yeah, I think we agree. It just comes down to how loose you want to define a scienitist. Agreed.WRT it being a profession. If you get paid to do it then your a professional. I get paid to do science. I call myself a scientist. I think adding in the part about developing theory is not defining the word loose enough to include everyone who, IMO, should be called a scientist.

Are you reporting your results to someone else who is analyzing them?If so, then I can see how you are aiding them.At my job, I don't have anyone above me to report the results too and I don't have anyone aiding me, though sometimes I wish I did. We have a couple chemists here doing formulation work 'n-stuff. But I work in the technical service department and most of the experiments I do are from questions that customers are asking. So, its up to me to design the experiment, obtain the results, and report them to the customer. If we were a bigger company, my job might be done by three people, if there was an aid or a tech in the lab.

For some reason I don't want to get too detailed about my job. I'd like to remain anonymous, and although I've revealed enough information to ruin that, I don't want to make it too easy. I'm not really sure why, but I think I'm more open when anonymous. I don't remember everything I've typed on here and perhaps I've typed some things that I don't want some of the people who know me to know about me. Make sense? Well, its nothing developmental. Mostly basic laboratory chemistry. With technical service, someone might want some information that hasn't been measured or determined yet. I did a simple acid/base titration today that someone specifically asked about. I didn't have the information available to me so I went in the lab and figured it out.Sometimes I am involved in kinda developmental work. We have R&D chemists who develop formulas, like a cook book recipe if we were making food, and I'll aid them occasionally. This aiding might include some experimentation.The stuff I’m doing doesn’t require any advanced expertiese in any fields(The formulation does a little but I’m just aiding that). I’d bet that you could do it, or if you couldn’t you’d be able to find out how. I don’t even hypothesize what the result will be, I might “think up a guess” or expect a certain result though. Which will bring me back towards the topic of bad science.What about unexpected results?People have different opinions on what is unethical. We can probably agree that falsifying data is unethical. What about ignoring it? Failing to record it? Yadda yadda yaddaWhat about when someone pays for scientific data that they are hoping makes them look better. Money could change your ethics.Basically it comes down to the scientist(s) on whether or not the science is ”bad’, what I would call unethical. Does it happen? Of course.Is science ”bad’? Of course not. But it can be, just like religion.Were the individual cases in the OP 'bad' science? I have no idea.It could be either way. I think global warming could be anthing from natural fluctuations to our self created doomsday device to god's wrath pured onto the sinner's. I'd have to see more data to be able to tell. Its possible for the fossil fuel companies to pay for 'bad' science to thwart global warming, they have the money and the motive, but I'm still not convinced.ABE: But no one would no what you are talking about. Its possible that I'm not a 'scientist' by the most accepted definition but you could catch me at work in a lab coat with safety glasses, notebook, calculator and all that shit, looking like a scientist and using the method. I'd call you and crash a scientist too. I'd don't think the definition has to include developing and testing theory.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Well, my on topic point was that it comes down to the scientist on whether or not the science is 'bad'. Thats where the ethics come into play. Thats where you'll find the distinction.