Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonhansel | Hacker News Reader

This isn't really relevant, but I dislike the term "citizen scientists."

It seems to imply that those working within formal institutions are normally the only ones capable of "doing science," and that it is somehow abnormal to consider mere civilians as even minor participants in the scientific process.

Of course, there is no precise line between science and just gaining everyday knowledge through observation or experimentation, something all of us do, to a greater or lesser extent, all the time. So it makes little sense to see "scientists" and "citizens" as two sharply distinct groups.

View on HN

I read it differently, like the term "amateur scientist" that has been used in the past. To me, it's a term of respect, acknowledging the fact that it's hard to do good science without institutional support, uplifting when someone does it, and spectacular when it's a major discovery.

And oddly enough, people defend science by pointing out that it's like what most people do all the time, but perhaps conducted at a more sophisticated level.

Disclosure: I have "scientist" in my job title.

I'm also defending science by, as you say, pointing out that it's like what most people do all the time. But it's precisely for this reason that I don't think that one can draw any clear distinction between scientists and non-scientists or see scientists as somehow distinct from "citizens."

Of course, we can use various terms to describe people belonging to specific institutions or working in specific disciplines, but I don't think it makes any sense to draw a general distinction between "professional scientists," "amateur scientists," and "non-scientists." (Few, I think, consider "amateur" a compliment.)

"amateur" and "professional" have pretty precise definitions: a professional X is someone who is payed to do X, an amateur X is someone who does X without being payed for it.

So, someone who does science without being paid specifically to do science is quite appropriately named "an amateur scientist".

Yes, they're not "citizen scientists", they're just scientists.

How many people's job title is "scientist"?

Debt from a PhD doesn't mean your science is necessarily more rigorous or valid; it may imply you have a higher budget, or it may not.

I bought a copy of "astrophysical techniques" by C.R. Kitchin the other day; that's probably the same book the "real scientists" have -- if I set up a detector network and write the software to manage it and write a paper about it, all built on funds from my automation company, am I less of a scientist simply because I dropped out in the first semester of my freshman year of high school?

I don't know, the data and test rigor are the same either way.

No, the effort and rigor required to do good science is beyond what people can acquire by accident. The first research project that people usually do almost on their own is the _PhD project_. I wouldn’t even call undergrads „scientists“ and the projects they do are more scientific than this (the citizen scientists in this case installed boxes with sensors at their place. There is little science in this tbh.

Another exercise: replace „scientist“ with other professions and see whether you would agree that the term makes sense: „citizen software engineer“, „citizen doctor“, …

(I hold a university degree but not a PhD)

Imagine if this was applied to computer science... Most people are citizen developers on github! :*

Reply on news.ycombinator.com