Who are the "scientific community"?

I keep hearing about the "scientific community" in places like this and I was curious about who you think the "scientific community" is. Does the "scientific community" include industry? some of the finest chemists and materials scientists work in industry. Is it academia only? Does the "scientific community" include state and city government biologists? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

All of the above.

 

It includes scientists.

 

It's kinda like when someone says..."well, THEY say..." who are they? No one knows.

 

I would think “the scientific community” generally refers to scientists involved in doing, peer-reviewing and discussing scientific research. It’s those communications that make it a community but it also means someone could be a scientist but not involved in it. I don’t think where a scientist works automatically includes or excludes them from the scientific community. A scientist who works for private industry could still stay involved (if only informally) in the community while a scientist working at a public university could focus entirely on their own work and not get involved in the community at all.

I suspect the same kind of distinction exists in lots of technical industries, they’re just not in the public domain in the same way. I know that in software development, there are a subset of people who are involved in conferences, presentations and books developing theories, principles and new technologies in the field and they form a similar community. Some are in academia, some have day jobs and some make this a career in itself. There are lots of others who don’t get involved in that in any way (short of occasionally searching for solutions to a problem) and just get on with their job.

 

We're "them", we're "they", we're above the law, over it, beyond it. We are the men in black.

 

Even in industry there are people who write and publish if for no other reason than to promote some product. What I am getting at here is that there seems to be an opinion that the "scientific community" exists only in academia, and I don't agree with that.

 

Especially in industry I’d say but that doesn’t determine whether they’re part of the “scientific community”. A rotten apple is still fruit.

I’m not convinced the average layman has as constructed a view as that. When people see the phrase “scientific community”, I don’t think they have a strong image of who those people work for specifically. There will be images of a room full of lab coats, test tubes and mysterious boxy machines but no wider concept of where that room actually is.

 

Then we're pretty much back where we started from.

 

My first answer stands. The issue of some scientists doing bad science is irrelevant.

 

The scientific community would be a community of scientists. It does not matter where they are, what is required to be a part of it would be that they be a scientist or support person who is educated and capable. Even the Lay scientist could be considered a member through interest or contribution. I understand the intent of this thread is to question the integrity of science by attempting to debase the sources of Data, and would point out that this community does not speak for science....science does. Regardless one must be open to and be capable of understanding the data to grasp it in the first place.

The heavily religious minded (as in the OP) need not pay attention to it.

 

The scientific community has always been plagued by science fraud. Fudging results is far too common - it pays too well.

 

Which does not in any way change my commentary.

 

Imo, the 'scientific atheist' is not based on science, but philosophy using scientific terms, & blurring the lines between verifiable scientific fact, & speculation. Dogmatic statements about the origin of life & the universe are made, with absolutely NO basis in fact. Their 'faith' is built on a mountain of assumptions, speculation, & conjecture. It is no more 'scientific' than any deist's view. The complex Hawkingsesque reasonings have no scientific basis, but are fantasy speculations, AFTER the assumption of naturalism is made. But how can one assume that the universe is constant, timeless, infinite, eternal, or any such abstract notion? These are extrapolations, based on a very limited data set.. human history, human knowledge base, & human observation. This is not a very inspiring method to base one's eternal views of the soul & the universe on, yet that is the demand from the tyrannical priests of Naturalism.

Science has been misused & blamed for a great many things, & the alleged death of God is one of them.

 

It was intended to add to it. Sadly science fraud has been encouraged. That is a shame.

 

many of the articles you read are
from teachers and community college teachers...not real scientists

 

Many teachers are actually scientists...and many scientists are teachers.

 

'Science' is not a title. It is a process. It is a method of discovery, & has NOTHING to do with title, degree, or credentials. You either follow the scientific method & make conclusions based on your data, or you speculate about the mysteries of life & pontificate based on your credentials. They are not the same.

 

When you're an evolutionist, you make stuff up. It's what you do.

 

Then we agree that the well documented extensive record of science fraud reduces the credibility of scientists and the scientific community.

 

Your claim about Hawking, and theoretical science in general, is pure nonsense.

 

You should know something about fraud.
In another thread you repeatedly quoted Stephen Gould out of context to make it appear that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionary scientists.
That's fraud.

 

No, that's not the intent of this thread. The intent of this thread, to put it bluntly, is to find out if people who are always talking about what the "scientific community" says know who the scientific community are, because quite frankly, some of you appear to believe that the "scientific community" thinks and moves in a bloc, and I am calling BS on that.

Is that a little clearer?

Perfect example of what I am talking about. And what does "science" say?

- - - Updated - - -

No, the claims I read are found here.

 

You seem to have the habit of placing your words into the mouths of others...it leaves a bad taste and does not help your reputation.

 

As it is very clear you neither care for or understand most science...Your commentary and opinions of it are fundamentally biased and dismissed. You may not like that it disagrees with your dogma and faith...but, it often does.