When can you call yourself a scientest? After bachelor's?

>>8317455
>4chan
>Publishing anything of value

Choose one

>>8317455
I would say once you have at least a bachelor's and working in a lab, or published, whichever comes first

t. undergrad shitter

When published.

>>8317455
I'd say after bachelor's plus if you start working in the field.

when you're paid to do science

>>8317459
>>8317549
Or is that a researcher?

>>8317756
Are you really a scientist if you're not researching anything?

>>8317455
after your PhD defense?

It's at least after bachelor, and you have to publish at least a couple of papers

>>8317925
yeah, theres plenty of instances where its one guy doing the abstract part while another does the actual experiment. even science still has division of labor.

If you're doing scientific work and you're publishing your work, you're a scientist. If you aren't, you're not.
Pretty simple concept.

>>8317455

When you've figured out some phenomenon in nature or possible phenomenon through the use of hypothesis and experimentation.

Everything else is social ape faggotry.

But in most contexts, that would probably be a PhD defense although you might do hobby work that would count as "scientific".

A 10 year old working with a chemistry set is probably more of a "scientist" than many medical majors who seem to persist on having (the appearance of) encyclopedic memories of authoritative symptom-to-diagnoses.

The ideal is someone who listens to reality and adjusts their models to what the results tell about reality. But it's a bitch because most scientists are horrible statisticians who apply terrible methodologies to their studies.