[swombat]

Does knowing a bit of physics make you a physicist? Does praying make you a monk? Does mixing a few chemicals make you a chemist? Does having some theories about people's motivations make you a behavioural psychologist? Does balancing a budget make you an accountant?

"Scientist" implies a certain amount of knowledge, training, discipline, etc. I'm not implying that every scientist needs to have undergone academic training - there are other ways - but merely doing a scientific experiment is not enough to call yourself a scientist.

A scientist is one who "does science" with some knowledge, consistency and perseverance.

[seanmcdirmid]

"Scientist" is a fluffy title like "Doctor" or "Professor", conveyed by other people or authorities for classification in a hierarchical/segmented society. As a researcher, I wear many hats doing design, coding, science, writing, etc..., but my title is just "researcher" because of the role I fill professionally.

[foobarbazqux]

I guess you'd better edit Wikipedia:

> In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method. [...] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

[swombat]

Wikipedia is not the ultimate repository of human knowledge, particularly when it comes to more tricky questions like "what is a scientist?"...

If we're going to throw definitions around, how about dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist?s=t

> an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.

[foobarbazqux]

Actually I think Wikipedia is pretty good for tricky questions, in that they attract a lot of attention and receive a lot of edits.

If being a scientist is determined by the consensus of one's peers, it seems like it makes sense to accept an article defining what scientists are that is written as a consensus opinion.

But anyway, if you think it's wrong, why don't you edit it?

[Tichy]

I'd say doing science requires a specific mindset. Using amount of knowledge as a criterion seems wrong - how did the first scientists come about, presumably they didn't know anything at all yet?