Last week, UK chemist Nessa Carson wrote a column at ChemistryWorld grappling with the question of who really is, or isn’t, a scientist. Carson touches on a few issues, including citizen-science efforts and the ever-pervasive imposter syndrome, and ends with a reminder that since “people expect scientists to always be old, white men with wild hair, perhaps more of us who don’t fit that profile should proudly identify as scientists wherever we can!”
In response to this welcoming message that reaffirms science should be an inclusive endeavor that makes the most of everyone’s talents, regardless of age, race or gender….one of the old white men at WUWT took it upon himself to answer Carson’s rhetorical question literally.
In his reaction, guest poster David Middleton narrowly defines what a scientist is, and in doing so accidentally rebukes a significant plank of climate denial: that the opinion of non-climate-scientists should be given the same weight as actual climate scientists when judging the veracity of climate science.
Middleton’s definition of a scientist is someone with a college degree in science, who works as a scientist. He then sets up a strawman with a photo from the 2017 March for Science, claiming that he’s “fairly certain that none” of the protesters pictured are scientists.
Not only does he not provide any evidence for his claim, but the evidence that does exist suggests that 27 percent of the marchers were scientists at research institutions, in the private sector, or at a government agency. Of the dozen or so marchers in the foreground of the two photos Middleton posted from the March for Science, odds are at least three of them are scientists.
Another 25 percent reported working in a science-affiliated occupation, like as a medical professional, engineer or science teacher. That means that it’s likely half the folks pictured have a science background. That tracks with the finding that 63 percent of the marchers had a master’s, doctoral, or professional degree.
Again, Middleton’s qualifications to call oneself a scientist were if you had a science degree or job in the field, which would mean that most of the marchers were just as much a scientist as Middleton.
And we would be remiss not to mention that the term “scientist” itself has a somewhat surprising inclusionary history. Some have argued that the word scientist was coined specifically because the existing phrase, “man of science,” wouldn’t have been accurate when applied to Mary Somerville. (As Maria Popova has pointed out, in addition to being a polymath, Somerville tutored Lord Byron’s daughter Ada Lovelace and introduced her to Charles Babbage, making her something of a godmother of computing.)
In writing a review of Somerville’s 1834 work that weaved together many branches of physical science, William Whewell writes how Somerville’s book seeks to “remove the evil” of the “division of the soil of science into infinitely small allotments.” Whewell describes how various other terms of the age aren’t quite right, but instead “by analogy with artist, they might form scientist.”
From its very beginnings, the label scientist was intended to cover a broad swath of thinkers and researchers, specifically including those otherwise marginalized due to their identity. This makes Middleton’s scientist-gatekeeping not only factually wrong, but also historically ignorant.
As a bonus, it all runs counter to a cornerstone of (climate) skepticism, and the notion that anyone armed with the scientific method can discover the evidence needed to upend a consensus.
So however you may choose to define a scientist, David Middleton is not a good one.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: