Editorial

Editorial No.: 00001
Date Posted: July 8, 1999

Who is a "Scientist?"

Since the opening of the TASTE site, several people have raised the issue of what qualifies a person as being a "scientist," and so able to submit material to TASTE. One correspondent, e.g., wrote:

I have a B.Sc. (Hons) in Computer Science, however I work as a freelance web developer / Internet Systems Integrator, which I do not perceive to be a scientist's role ... would I be able to contribute to the web site ? Or is it only for academics working in Universities or research departments?

This is a good question. It makes me want to make the definition of a scientist more explicit, instead of assuming people already know the answer. A part of me that likes order wants a clear, unambiguous criterion - but I suspect the actual answer will be, like most of life, somewhat subject to judgement at times.

My first response to this question was that I do not like to exclude anyone from contributing to the TASTE site - but, nevertheless, my time and resources are limited, and this site's purpose is collecting and disseminating scientists' transcendent experiences. I am exploring the possibility of some similar site not restricted to scientists alone submitting accounts, as there is a clear need for it, but I have no resources for this at present. Meanwhile, a quite excellent site open to all is the Exceptional Human Experiences web site http://www.ehe.org. And anyone with internet access can read the TASTE site and learn from it.

My second thought was to be conventional, set an MA degree as the minimal postgraduate education level for contributors, and then locate a catalog of various established sciences in which to specify training, such as Anthropology, Archeology... Chemistry... Mathematics... Physics... Psychology... Zoology, etc. This would be very "objective" and clear... but such a list would be long and awkward, and tend to overlook younger, less established sciences. If you have an advanced degree in a conventionally accepted science, of course, there's no question but that you're eligible to submit material. I expect the vast bulk of submission to TASTE to come from people who meet this conventional definition of scientist. But I think a more essential approach, in terms of what a person does for a living that constitutes science, is needed in occasional instances, even if it involves more judgement on both your and my parts. If you feel your profession is that of a scientist, given the discussion below, even if it doesn't quite fit the conventional categories above, go ahead and submit, and leave the final judgement up to me as editor.

I've published several articles on the essence of science in terms of methodology (see my web archives at www.paradigm-sys.com/cttart/), so let me very briefly sketch those principles here.

A scientist is someone working to contribute to a body of knowledge, a science. She brings a curiosity to a field, plus an optimism that systematic observation and thinking can lead to advances in knowledge, plus a nobility of purpose in the belief that working toward discovering truth or better approximations to truth, using essential scientific method, and using absolute honesty, is far more important than upholding personal biases and beliefs. This approach is coupled with long and arduous training, usually represented by a Masters or Doctoral degree in the relevant field, often with further postdoctoral training.

Essential Science

Briefly, scientific method is a cyclical process that starts with (1) observation of data; leading to (2) the application of the intellect and logic(s) to make conceptual sense of the data, to theorize about what it means; tempered by the realization (3) that the mind can retrospectively rationalize anything in appealing, plausible ways, so a theory that accounts for all current data is an excellent start, but a scientific theory must make predictions that can be tested against new data. If the predictions fail, the theory must be rejected or modified, as data, observation is always primary over theory. Finally a fourth, essential step of science is that the above three processes, observation, theorizing, and testing, are all honestly and openly shared with colleagues (the publication and communication link), so the community of practitioners of a science catches errors based on individuals' biases and extends the capacities of individual scientists. There is also a continual commitment to refining all four aspects of this process. We start with crude observations and theories, test and refine these individually and communally, have more accurate observations and theories that work better, share and test these, etc., and make progress as a field.

The above does not take all the complexities of science into account, but hopefully will help individuals clarify whether they work professionally as scientists and wish to submit material to TASTE.

— Charles T. Tart

Editorial Archives

Top of Page

The TASTE name, logo, web site contents and computer graphics
are Copyright © 1999 by ISSC. All rights reserved.
Please see our Copyright page for info on excerpts, attributions, etc.
For corrections or questions about this web site, email the Webmaster.