Ignorant Atheists?

[Edwardo Piet]

'no true scotsman' page on wikipedia: 'Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
Here it changes from "no scotsman" to "no true scotsman". It doesn't begin with "no true scotsman".
Also on atheist.net where I learnt about it, I was told that it only applies if you change your previous definition by ADDING "true" to it afterwards to cover up your previous claim
Is that incorrect?

[leo-rcc]

Then you learnt wrong.

Scientists are persons inolved in Science. Whether it is Biology, Physics, Geology, Astronomy, or Philosophy. Even Theology. And what they do in that field they can do without putting religion into their work. And the scientific method ensures their work is reviewed and tested objectively.

So Full Scientists does apply.

From your original message:

So since faith and superstition is the enemy and perhaps even the reverse of the scientific method - and scientific thinking. For the same reason as the above paragraph, perhaps you could say that someone who is a scientist but tolerates faith and superstition can be a scientist at heart but he isn't in practice?

Now granted you put perhaps in, but this is just a reworded NTS.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I'm sure. I'm inclined to agree with you now. Although the main problem I have is the definition of what makes someone a scientist in the first place. Perhaps that's why I got so confused and mixed such issues as you said.
Is it just anyone who practices the scientific method?
Or is it just anyone with a P.h.d in science?
Or just anyone who studies science?
Adrian has suggested to me that its both the 3rd and 1st I gave. Someone who uses the scientific method to study science.
But now I'm thinking. How could you study science WITHOUT the scientific method? So is it just studying science?
I guess I think that someone who studies science but who is also religious and has "faith", if he/she doesn't keep the faith to themselves, although still technically a scientist, is less of a scientist than if he/she were an atheist if her "faith" is indeed being anti-scientific. If not, and especially if he/she keeps her "faith" to his/her self. I don't think it subtracts from their respect as to be called as much of a scientist.
I don't think all religious scientists aren't scientists. Especially if they keep their "faith" to themselves. At least most of the time.
About the " no true scotsman" thing. I indeed thought it was about changing the definition to cover up. That's what I've heard.
Also would it count as a "no true scotsman" if I instead said "true scientists are like this...:' and then stated what TRUE scientist is?
Because I have seen in TGD, even Dawkins say "the true scientist".
It doesn't count without the "no" does it? So I could have argued the same way but from the other direction. Without the word "no"?

[leo-rcc]

A scientist can be anyone engaged in the study of a certain field of science or working on advancements in that field. I don't see how you can do proper science without the scientific method really. But you are not required to apply the scientific method on subject outside the field of science you are engaged in. Dr. or Prof. titles are not required, though they are an acknowledgement of having learned in that field and aiding in the advancement. But only in that field. But there are of course scientists that hold titles in more than one field of science.

When someone (usually a theist) says to me "well but this person has a Phd so this person is really smart" that doesn't tell me much. A Phd in biology is of little use when discussing physics and vice versa. Not that you made that mistake here EVF, this is just a general statement.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. Point taken. So would a "no true scotsman" count without a "no"?
E.g if you said "the true scotsman"?

On the matter of whether someone is a scientist or not If they're religious. I guess it depends if you're more pro-evidence/atheist or more anti-faith/anti-theist.
I'm more pro-evidence but I'm certainly anti-faith too.
Unlike the other 3 horsemen. Hitchens descibes himself not as an atheist but as an 'anti-thesit' for example.
So I guess in that case you could very well know that technically religious people are scientists. But since you think 'faith' is so bad for the world and bad for science. You wouldn't really consider them scientists anyway. Or maybe unless they were very good scientists and/or didn't influence science negatively with their faith? Maybe if not through themselves but through converting other people either intentionally or unitentionally.
I dunno. What do you think? A lot of this is just speculation.
But I'm more pro-evidence than anti-faith anyway. After all if I wasn't pro-evidence I would be more agnostic about God. So I wouldn't want to say religion was bad for the world if I thought there was a good chance that it wasn't delusional. And that it was overall good for people.
But I indeed DO think its delusional. I am Pro-evidence and there is no evidence of God. And God is very very improbable indeed.
EDIT: I've also been thinking now. If a religious scientist is considered to be a true scientist. Would he be considered a true scientist if instead he believed in Russell's Teapot? If he was a teapot worshiper instead of a Christian for example? But otherwise the same?
And if saying 'the true scientist' counts as a NTS in just any context. Then Dawkins has said this in TGD. So would this count as a NTS?