Belief that Science is the One True Path? (01-Feb-05)

No, you do not have to believe that only science can provide the answers to all questions to be a Compleat Scientist (or even just a scientist).

However, for the types of questions which it is suited--a number bigger than advocates of other pathways to knowledge will admit--science is superior. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

A "Western" mindset? (24-Dec-04)

Do you need "Western" values to be a Compleat Scientist?

No. You do not need to participate in, or subscribe to any unique elements of, so-called Western civilization in order to be a scientist. The things that delineate the subculture of science are compatible with any other thing you might reasonably call culture. Facets of science (including some of its results--not what we're talking about here) might be incompatible with your individual doxastic hungers and with factual claims made by your co-culturists, but science is a culture-independent strategy for finding out certain types of things. It is as acultural as the wheel or long division or marriage or dance.

Certain cultural values? (19-Nov-04)

Do you need certain cultural values to be a Compleat Scientist?

Depends what you means by "culture" I suppose. There's two things to talk about here: firstly, the culture within science and, secondly, any effect of wider culture on the practice of science. The first is easy: you definitely need to participate in the (sub)culture of science in order to be a recognized scientist, though to be a scientist-in-the-head requires less visible commitment. The rest of this article is about this. It's pretty hard to articulate the Culture Of Science and I've made an imperfect attempt. As for the effects of your or any other wider culture, the compatibility or otherwise of science with cultures is discussed elsewhere hereabouts.

A friendly universe? (09-Nov-04)

Do you need a tolerant or friendly universe to be a Compleat Scientist?

No, just a barely compatible one. This is a question for everyone, not just scientists; a friendly--or amenable, or tolerant, or at worst merely compatible--universe is a prerequisite for the existence of you, me, plumbers, sea squirts and giant redwoods. Scientists may perhaps feel the question more keenly because they are engaged with the universe in its detail, because they have a passion for understanding it, and because they at times tamper with it. Scientists are best placed to find out how friendly the universe is. They can also ask the interesting question of how long it will remain so.

(The question is necessarily anthropomorphic. The universe is neither friendly nor unfriendly but it seems hard-wired in us to ask these existential queries from the intentional stance.)

Awe in the face of the infinite? (20-Oct-04)

Do you need to be gasping in wonder at the world in order to be a Compleat Scientist?

Always. The Compleat Scientist certainly needs to make an honest attempt to grok[28] the immensity and complexity and perplexity of it all. Actually, those might not be the right words: a certain humbleness about how little it is possible to see--let alone comprehend, let alone grok--is a necessary trait in a scientist. An uneasy balance between shock and calculating appraisal is required. To date, the only way we have found of inching towards a glimpse of a sliver of a simplistic understanding of any part of the universe is through science. It's a cure for our species's arrogance rather than a cause.

Scientific training? (30-Jun-04)

Do you need scientific training in order to be a Compleat Scientist?

No. A Compleat Scientist does not have to have a PhD, or a laboratory group, or a synchrotron, or a pipette, or a labcoat, or a calculator, or an Einsteinian haircut[30]. A Compleat Scientist has a scientific approach to life but may work in an office, a truck, a workshop, or a home. A Compleat Scientist doesn't have to know what a tachyon is, or a nucleotide, or a paleosol, or a retinoblastoma, or an engram, or an anisotropic universe, or whether the the Hawthorne effect is a real one or not.

A particular mental pathology? (31-May-04)

Do you need a particular mental pathology to be a Compleat Scientist?

I suspect so. Perhaps "pathology" is a bit too loaded a term - a particular atypicality or a certain quirk of mental configuration, then. The question comes down to whether or not anyone can choose to be a compleat scientist, or whether only some kinds of brain can do it? This is not to ask whether a person can opt to make a living as a scientist, nor whether they can temporarily get into the mindset of one - such things are entirely possible. However, I don't believe a person can select Science-with-a-capital-S from the range of lifestyle options and live it, full time, without stinting. Are compleat scientists born or made? I think they're born then made, arriving with the inbuilt tendencies and developing them to fullness in an appropriate environment. There are many more that are born and then left unmade.