[fooker]

>Please don't masquerade mythologocal saints/yogis as scientists.

What is a scientist?

Does Newton qualify as one in your worldview? He spent about half his life on alchemy.

Will any of our scientists qualify as scientists after a thousand more years of science?

[yantrams]

I should've phrased it better. I meant masquerading fictional scientists as real scientists.

And yes based on my understanding of science, Newton was a scientist and so were the undocumented pioneers who tinkered with what they had available at the time. Be it the wandering ascetics from India who studied the effects of various herbs on humans to compile treatises on medicine like Ayurveda or the priests and traders from Babylonia who arrived at mathematical results based on heuristic principles, in my worldview, they are all scientists.

[ralfd]

Newton was a mathematician, but he was not a scientist. John Maynard Keynes opined "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians."

"Scientist" is a modern term and I would grant historic figures only that label, if they (disregarding if their conclusions were right or wrong) tried to reason about the world in a systematic fashion and according to empiricism and logic.

[aalleavitch]

The modern idea of a scientist is almost purely an enlightenment-era concept, and only represents one revision towards a better understanding of the world out of many throughout human history.

I think your distinction is pretty arbitrary; in what way does a mathematician not attempt to reason about the world in a systematic fashion and according to empiricism and logic? The only real difference over time has been in our ability to determine valid logic, our rigor in what empirical evidence we'll accept, and our sophistication in how we systematically go about this process. Early philosophers were attempting each of these things to various degrees, they just weren't as good as we are now at them. Really defining the "first scientist" is like defining the "first mammal"; the category is fuzzy and doesn't really mean anything at that level of granularity.

[gbacon]

Where do Newton’s study and formulations of optics and celestial motion place him in your taxonomy?

I suspect Keynes’s desire to discredit Newton was motivated more by the former’s irrational, perhaps as the first postmodernist, impulse to deny the value of gold.

[blueprint]

Yes, I would tend to agree with you. Science means "application". The origin of science is philosophy. That's why to be a true scientist, one ought to be familiar with philosophy, first. The problem is, in this day and age, while science and technology have developed greatly, philosophy is ancient, and has disappeared.

The evidence is that if you go to the top philosophers these days then they will be unaware of the right answer to the first question in studying philosophy: what is the definition of philosophy? Without having learned it, people have been going around trying to teach what they are unaware of.

[fooker]

The problem is that the prevalent view of what is considered 'systematic fashion' tends to change rather quickly.

Even in modern science, there is a lot of ambiguity about what scientific method 'permits'. For example, many physicists would scoff at the idea of String Theory being called real physics.

What happens, if, in some 500 years we find a definitive way to simulate experiments? I can see any physical science not validated by such a simulation being dismissed.

[mr_toad]

Newton’s work on optics alone qualify him as a scientist.

And his deduction of the laws of motion, thermodynamics, and gravity establish him as one of the greatest scientists ever.