Thread: Drawing the line - definition of "biologist"

Biology is a very, very broad field; it's generally defined as 'the science of life', but you already know that.

The question on my mind is: who is a biologist? The question may seem very simple at first: well of course a biologist is someone who studies biology. But in truth it's not that simple.

Would you, for example, call a doctor a biologist? Of course such a person is involved in the 'science of life'; he/she studies life, and even fights to preserve it.

Many of us see biologists as researchers: people who study the ecosystem, or seek cures to and prevention of diseases. But is this the right view? Why don't we view doctors as biologists?

</>

Because most of them are stupid. They do research without the proper background and hence they do often silly stuff.

Or they have the backing of lots of funds and pay their way through research.

(slight resentment here that distorts reality)

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Because most of them are stupid. They do research without the proper background and hence they do often silly stuff.

Or they have the backing of lots of funds and pay their way through research.

(slight resentment here that distorts reality)

Do you honestly believe <most> doctors are stupid?

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Because most of them are stupid. They do research without the proper background and hence they do often silly stuff.

Or they have the backing of lots of funds and pay their way through research.

(slight resentment here that distorts reality)

Do you honestly believe <most> doctors are stupid?

No. I know that they are.

regarding science that is. I have to listen to their nonsense all the time.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Because most of them are stupid. They do research without the proper background and hence they do often silly stuff.

Or they have the backing of lots of funds and pay their way through research.

(slight resentment here that distorts reality)

Do you honestly believe <most> doctors are stupid?

No. I know that they are.

regarding science that is. I have to listen to their nonsense all the time.

Nonsense or incomprhensive jargon?

no. you can pick them out before they even open their mouth.

They all had the same brainwashing program and it shows in their attitude.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

no. you can pick them out before they even open their mouth.

They all had the same brainwashing program and it shows in their attitude.

Oh you mean that cocky arrogant attitude they have? I see what you mean, must be something about them. Probably because they are doctors they think they know it all.

and somehow they can absorb 5-10 years of scientific training a biologist receives in a week or less.

possible?

unlikely.

There's a doctor in my lab who I've heard say that medical school beats a research mentality out of you. that might contribute to it.

anyway, i think few people really refer to themselves as simply biologists, not without some sort of modifier. Most define themselves by the specific subfield they focus on.

Doctors are basically flip books. Think of them as Dell tech support people. You give them keywords, they flip to a page, try some shit, and if it doesn't work they try something else. I guess ALL doctors aren't that bad, but your general practice docs are pretty terrible. I think a lot of researcher's believe they are much smarter than doctors. I know I just go to a general practice doc for referrals to someone that knows what they're talking about :P

I never thought about it like that. Studying medicine has always seemed very common and uninteresting to me; didn't know why. Maybe it's because I'm hungry for actual science?