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"?
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"?
