Is it still possible to be an "amateur scientist" like

depends what you mean by "scientist"

>>8986444
Well, actual contributor to the scientifical community and the knowledge of a field

>>8986413
Sure, you could set yourself up a pretty nice lab or telescope or what have you. Problem is that science is so incremental now, people spend entire careers just to advance a small niche thing. I consider myself an amateur astronomer, however I will very likely never discover anything, I just enjoy the hobby.

>>8986413
depends on the field

I'm in Paleontology, there are some who contributed to the field without any degrees(for example: Jack Horner)but he had some academic training and more importantly:connections

The vast majority of "amateurs" in my field are your cancerous "DURRR DINOSAURS KOOL LOOK I KNO ANATOY AND DINOSAUR NAME ME EXPERT" types, many of which you find on deviantart where they draw paleoart because they know they'll never make it in an actual academia

for example here: http://feathernazis.deviantart.com/
Almost none, if any, are actually doing any research and go around making spurious claims without any hard evidence

Point is is that, nowadays, if you really want to be taken seriously in science and publish, you best pursue some sort of STEM degree and befriend and work with those in the field

Sure, you just need boatloads of money. Much like the gentleman scientists of yore.

>>8986450
like the others have posted it DEF depends on the field. but to answer your question, yes, since if it is possible in one field then that is sufficient enough to answer your question. one example is theoretical physics. you could theoretically get a degree, then sit in your office and crunch numbers/try out theories you have. no equipment required other than a pen and imagination. now nobody would pay you to do this but you could do whatever you want. Something like experimental particle physics, for example, probably not as you would need extremely expensive equipment.

>>8986474
but u'd have to do it as a hobby, not just as a "job" or a sole means of making money.

>>8986474
Ok, maybe physics may be out of budget reach but how about chemistry/biochemistry ? I think apart from the spectrometers and centrifuges it is just basically pee pee pee poo poo poo, glazees and shee, right ?

>>8986497
Don't know much about modern chemistry/biochemistry, but I'd assume most of the actual "science" is being done on the nano-level, which would require expensive equipment. You don't really discover anything by mixing two things in a flask anymore. That's all been done.

>>8986512
I see. Could i still try to implement "experiments" via computer simulations and all ? I mean, the computer still can't simulate 100% of an atom because there's a lot of unknown things, but still. Even so, do you think if i asked nicely some university could try to show some result on a proposed experiment if i present them the procedures and maths ?

>>8986413
Tesla was perhaps the last of this kind.

However if you consider Computer "Science" as Science then there are millions of Computer "Scientists" without a degree out there.

>>8986534
>>8986528

>>8986528
In terms of biochemistry, you'll eventually need to do a wet lab experiment to confirm your hypothesis. The difficult parts like reading the literature to find a molecule or protein of interest can all be done at home (given you have access to journals).

If you create a simulation of cells you'll probably win a Nobel prize

>>8986544
Uhm, but in terms of molecules, bonds and interactions, would computer simulations do the job ?

>>8986554
Not really. Afaik, it's mostly drug companies pouring millions or billions into protein-substrate simulations. I'm most knowledgeable about cancer biochem research but I've never read about anyone doing simulations that advanced. There's obviously a lot of bioinformatics going on but that's more statistics than computer simulation

>>8986566
Kay, den. But you still didn't answer the asking the uni nicely to do the experiment if you show your math's thing. Can I say they can have all the revenue as long as I get mentioned ?

>>8986581
If you asked my lab, my supervisor would kindly show you the door then we'd all have a laugh

>>8986583
Awn, das rude. Would i receive the same treatment if i had done a theoretical study as an amateur and applied it to a magazine ?

>>8986592
No idea. I think it comes down to finding a lab supervisor/member who's willing to work with you. Something like a friend or friend of a friend who can vouch for you or something. I know my supervisor is absolutely swamped with admin work and his own research so he literally wouldn't have time for you.

Problems facing home biology:

Proper disposal of hazardous waste.
Proper storage of hazardous chemicals.
Expensive equipment and reagents.
Expensive service contracts on your expensive equipment.

There's no reason you can't have a productive home amateur lab but it's just orders of magnitude easier to do it in a university system where a lot of those things already exist.

>>8986413
yes, and I bet it's still happening today

You have to be very intelligent, as well as rich and have a lot of free time.

>>8986566
What should I study in university so I can be a part of this?

>>8986413
You can solve the Riemann hypothesis at home. I know this because I did this once

>>8986718
Part of what? I'm obviously biased towards biochem+informatics if you want to do cancer research. Otherwise do any stem field and you can do some sort of research

>>8986718
Data science or bioinformatics if you want to work with the data collected

We hear about some third wold fags from time to time who make pretty significant inventions and discoveries. This maybe somewhat proves that you can, in fact make some contribution outside the fitting environnement.

>>8986763
>>8986764

Okay, perhaps I could be more specific. What would I need to study to do work like protein-substrate simulations? Is it profitable to study both biochemistry and informatics for a potential biotech career? What exactly is informatics? Would this direction be interesting for somebody who also likes synthetic biochemistry?

>>8986413
computational chemistry

>>8986413
the scientists of that day were incredibly wealthy and had no responsibilities. If this is your current situation then you absolutely can run your own lab. Hell I'd even apply to work with you, I'd enjoy doing some mad science with anons

>>8986413
Look into citizen science programs. Scientist outsource work to the masses now, if you are looking to contribute.

>>8986413
In astronomy amateurs are important in locating comets still.

Mind you with the huge survey systems coming online I am not sure how long that will last.

There are also citizen science project where you participate in characterising images.

There are times where human judgement still outclasses computers.

>>8987923
>human judgment still outclasses computers

IIRC that star with the huge, abnormal brightness dips (the "alien megastructures" people were in a tizzy about) was found by people scouring over Kepler data.

Also OP, you can still call yourself an amateur scientist even if you don't contribute to the community at all. If you learn about the world by observation and experimentation, you're a scientist in my book.

>>8986450
the subjects being researched nowadays go far beyond your reach, my boy
Unless you have a particle accelerator at home I think you should let the science be done by actual scientists

>>8986413
Not really. In the present day contributions are made using millions of dollars and teams of professionals.