[mattmaroon]

That's the ultimate way of dismissing anything, just attack the very concept of credibility. It's downright idiotic to say there's no such thing as a scientist. That's like saying there's no such thing as a dentist.

Sure, there's some semantic considerations, and the word means different things to different people and may sometimes be used incorrectly, but there is a such thing as a scientist.

[kingkongrevenge]

Experimental physicist is to dentist as "scientist" is to ...?

"Scientist" is a meaningless word. Knowing that someone is called a scientist tells you absolutely nothing about their qualifications.

[mattmaroon]

Knowing that someone is a dentist tells you little. They could be a good one or a bad one. They could have not practiced in a long time. It doesn't mean "dentist" is not a word. Scientist is a rather general one, but still means anyone to whom it is rightfully applied is many orders of magnitude more likely to have intelligent feedback on global warming than the general populace.

[kingkongrevenge]

Who said anything about the general populace?

[mattmaroon]

The term exists to delineate between a subset of the general populace and the rest. Just like dentist. Dentists are the subset of the population that you see when your tooth aches, and scientists (especially a few specializations) are the ones you ask when you want to know why the glaciers are melting.

When someone say scientists agree on global warming, its like saying dentists agree on the causes of cavities. It's useful because it's talking about people in the know who are more apt to make such conclusions.

That's why you apologists try to demean the term. If nobody is a scientist then nobody has any more valid opinion than yours.

[kingkongrevenge]

> say scientists agree on global warming, its like saying dentists agree on the causes of cavities

Not even close. I really hope you can stop and think about this analogy and see how both the professional labels and the questions differ dramatically.

> If nobody is a scientist then nobody has any more valid opinion than yours

Nobody is a "scientist" because there's no such thing. There are etymologists and geologists and chemists and so on, just as there are plumbers and linguists, each qualified in their domains. As best I can tell all that unifies the "scientific professions" is that the paychecks are mostly from academia, because the work isn't commercially viable. That's not a slight at all, it's just to throw light on how ridiculous the distinction is. Any high IQ job involves problem solving and theory.

[mattmaroon]

sci⋅en⋅tist (noun) an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

You don't think there are experts in science?

You're somewhat right about 'dentist' as 'scientist' is more akin to doctor, but that doesn't make your overall argument any less silly.

I'm officially going to give up on you now though, it's clear I won't learn anything from this. You can have the last belligerent word.