I have to make a shitty assignment on what makes a ''good'' scientist

I have to make a shitty assignment on what makes a ''good'' scientist.

So Veeky Forums what is in your opinion a good scientist?

Tapping that delicious assistant boipucci every day.

Going by the standards of presentablity so you get a good grade (and not just give a true answer that's cause you to flunk out):
>Knowledgeable
A good scientist actually knows what the hell he's talking about and only uses what he knows, not what he thinks he knows.
>Imaginative and Curious
It's curiosity that is the cause of humanity exploring and going as far as taking step on the moon and piloting submarines down to the bottom of the ocean. It's imagination that is why every invention that has been invented was invented.
>Not afraid to admit that they're wrong.
Can't find an explanatory or motivational comment for this, but it is what it is and it's damn true so good luck OP.
>Won't even admit that they are a good scientist.
Even Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein struggled with the insecurities that they were retarded, when we all know damn well they weren't.

autism

reading the sticky

>carries battery powered homemade
Q-switched laser in a gun holster
>steals radioisotopes out of fire detectors for personal use
>keeps ampoules of tert-butyllithium, sulfur trioxide, ammonium perchlorate and other highly reactive compounds in his pants pockets, just in case
>hair stands stylishly on end from exposure to high powered electrical fields
>wears a Howie coat, elbow-length rubber gloves, and safety goggles at all times

Thomas edison is a brainlet

a good scientist doesn´t trust other scientists, because he only trusts proof. A good scientist would never just learn the ontology of a science and say it´s true he would check on the methods that were used and would replicate the phenomenons to see it for himself.

dubs checked

how would you get funding doing that asshole? explain who pays the bills.

A good scientist wouldn't trust data from the LHC; a good scientist would build his own.
A good scientist wouldn't trust that ionizing radiation kills people; a good scientist would give people radiation poisoning to study the phenomenon himself.
A good scientist doesn't trust that nuclear fission is possible; a good scientist detonates his own homemade nuclear bombs.

Indeed the funding is a problem, i never denied that. Everyone is forced to work with the limited money they can get their hands on, but trust in the ontology of a science is a problem too and if a well funded scientist actually gives you proof you can trust him. A real scientist is like a judge, that is he shouldn´t believe what people say is true but what the evidence is showing him.

...

>proofs
I think you're confusing natural science with formal science. Learn 2 induce n00b.

To answer that question, you must follow the scientific method.

>t. experimentalist pleb

Induction is problematic. To conclude from individual cases to something general can only get you to sentences like: as far as we know there is no exception from law x.

>Current year
>trusting data from the Large Hardon Collider

It is problematic, but non-defeasible reasoning is how natural science is conducted, in spite of its problems.

*defeasible

>not trusting technology
>using the Internet

You seriously don't trust the internet do you? If you do, you're a naive fool.

Such allegations as: "All x do y" have to be put in borders if they are not valid anymore that´s when we found an exception for it. Then we must say: "All x that are z do y" and that leaves the possibility that there are "x that are b,c or etc." I hope it´s not to abstract for you

A good scientist always starts with an interesting hypothesis.

Then they design experiments and they take accurate measurements.

Finally, they analyze their data and draw a conclusion based on this analysis.