Does it take one to know one? (scientist?)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Does it take one to know one? (scientist?)

Does it take one to know one? (scientist?)30-04-2026 03:31
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Most people are not scientists. How do we know is IS and who is NOT a "scientist"? Does it take one to know one? "Are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist?" - IBdaMann No, I am not. But how do scientists get "recognized"? Well, the most flattering thing they do to give recognition is to cite the published work of another scientist as being significant for some reason. This is also a crucial step in the Scientific Method, as the citations reveal if the methodology/results/conclusions are REPRODUCIBLE. What would a scientific nobody have to do to be "recognized" as a scientist? Perhaps that person has no academic degree of any kind. They can still publish something of scientific significance. If other scientists cite that work, that scientist has been "recognized". Otherwise, it really does take one to know one. Two random individuals may have an encounter in which they both make assertions about science. If one of them is a scientist and the other is not, that fact should not be a mystery to either of them. It will be self evident, regardless if there is any identification by name or title, unless one is just delusional.
30-04-2026 07:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: Most people are not scientists. Argument from randU fallacy. Im a BM wrote: How do we know is IS and who is NOT a "scientist"? Easy. One who acknowledges all theories of science, or manages to falsify one, or creates one. Im a BM wrote: Does it take one to know one? No, but you deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: "Are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist?" - IBdaMann No, I am not. Lie. Denial. Im a BM wrote: But how do scientists get "recognized"? Science is not 'recognition' or fame. Im a BM wrote: Well, the most flattering thing they do to give recognition is to cite the published work of another scientist as being significant for some reason. This is also a crucial step in the Scientific Method, as the citations reveal if the methodology/results/conclusions are REPRODUCIBLE. Science is not recognition or fame. Science is not a publication. Science is not a method or procedures. Science is not a citation. Science is not 'results' or 'conclusions'. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Im a BM wrote: What would a scientific nobody have to do to be "recognized" as a scientist? Science is not 'recognition' or fame. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps that person has no academic degree of any kind. Science is not a degree. Im a BM wrote: They can still publish something of scientific significance. Science is not a publication. Im a BM wrote: If other scientists cite that work, that scientist has been "recognized". Science is not a paper, book, website, search engine, or any other publication. Science is not 'recognition' or fame. Im a BM wrote: Otherwise, it really does take one to know one. Nope. You just want to deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: Two random individuals may have an encounter in which they both make assertions about science. If one of them is a scientist and the other is not, that fact should not be a mystery to either of them. It will be self evident, regardless if there is any identification by name or title, unless one is just delusional. You are just delusional. You think you can get away with pretending to be a chemist or a scientist. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-04-2026 11:23
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Most people are not scientists. Argument from randU fallacy. Im a BM wrote: How do we know is IS and who is NOT a "scientist"? Easy. One who acknowledges all theories of science, or manages to falsify one, or creates one. Im a BM wrote: Does it take one to know one? No, but you deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: "Are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist?" - IBdaMann No, I am not. Lie. Denial. Im a BM wrote: But how do scientists get "recognized"? Science is not 'recognition' or fame. Im a BM wrote: Well, the most flattering thing they do to give recognition is to cite the published work of another scientist as being significant for some reason. This is also a crucial step in the Scientific Method, as the citations reveal if the methodology/results/conclusions are REPRODUCIBLE. Science is not recognition or fame. Science is not a publication. Science is not a method or procedures. Science is not a citation. Science is not 'results' or 'conclusions'. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Im a BM wrote: What would a scientific nobody have to do to be "recognized" as a scientist? Science is not 'recognition' or fame. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps that person has no academic degree of any kind. Science is not a degree. Im a BM wrote: They can still publish something of scientific significance. Science is not a publication. Im a BM wrote: If other scientists cite that work, that scientist has been "recognized". Science is not a paper, book, website, search engine, or any other publication. Science is not 'recognition' or fame. Im a BM wrote: Otherwise, it really does take one to know one. Nope. You just want to deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: Two random individuals may have an encounter in which they both make assertions about science. If one of them is a scientist and the other is not, that fact should not be a mystery to either of them. It will be self evident, regardless if there is any identification by name or title, unless one is just delusional. You are just delusional. You think you can get away with pretending to be a chemist or a scientist. I knew that IBdaMann had never studied science as soon as he called my first post "incomprehensible gibber babble". I knew the same about Into the Night as soon as he called my first post "buzzwords". I have been able to get a lot of scientific papers published, or at least praised as dissertations, term papers, etc. I wouldn't have been able to bluff with "buzzwords" or "incomprehensible gibber babble". Unfortunately, neither Into the Night nor IBdaMann know how to read or write the language of science. One of many reasons it is of very little value to engage in any discussion about "science" with either of them.
30-04-2026 19:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: I knew that IBdaMann had never studied science as soon as he called my first post "incomprehensible gibber babble". It IS gibber babble. Im a BM wrote: I knew the same about Into the Night as soon as he called my first post "buzzwords". Buzzwords are gibber babble. Im a BM wrote: I have been able to get a lot of scientific papers published, or at least praised as dissertations, term papers, etc. I wouldn't have been able to bluff with "buzzwords" or "incomprehensible gibber babble". Science is not a paper. Science is not a publication. Science is not a dissertation. Science is not buzzwords. Science is not gibber babble. Im a BM wrote: Unfortunately, neither Into the Night nor IBdaMann know how to read or write the language of science. One of many reasons it is of very little value to engage in any discussion about "science" with either of them. Science is not a language. It is YOU denying theories of science. Inversion fallacy. You have denied the 1st law of thermodynamics. You have denied Henry's law. You have denied Black's law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Does it take one to know one? (scientist?):

Threads	Replies	Last post
not a climate scientist but just had an idea	19	07-02-2021 06:25
Should climate scientist try to regrow the glacial maximum dropping sea levels	110	31-01-2021 16:44
The most honest climate scientist among the most dishonest climate scientists	2	03-09-2019 04:38
An alternative theory from a non-scientist	5	29-04-2019 18:28
This scientist thinks she has the key to curb climate change: super plants	1	21-04-2019 03:43