Is it still possible to be an "amateur scientist" like there use to be in ye olden days ? I'm trying to say: being a scientist outside of equipped institutions and by your own means like Davy or Faraday were. Is it even possible to replicate, at least in a crude way, the equipments of uni labs with improvised materials or at least materials that are available to the common citizen ?
Is it still possible to be an "amateur scientist" like there use to be in ye olden days...
Parker Murphy
Other urls found in this thread:
Julian Evans
depends what you mean by "scientist"
Elijah Hernandez
Well, actual contributor to the scientifical community and the knowledge of a field
Dylan Phillips
Sure, you could set yourself up a pretty nice lab or telescope or what have you. Problem is that science is so incremental now, people spend entire careers just to advance a small niche thing. I consider myself an amateur astronomer, however I will very likely never discover anything, I just enjoy the hobby.
David Russell
depends on the field
I'm in Paleontology, there are some who contributed to the field without any degrees(for example: Jack Horner)but he had some academic training and more importantly:connections
The vast majority of "amateurs" in my field are your cancerous "DURRR DINOSAURS KOOL LOOK I KNO ANATOY AND DINOSAUR NAME ME EXPERT" types, many of which you find on deviantart where they draw paleoart because they know they'll never make it in an actual academia
for example here: feathernazis.deviantart.com
Almost none, if any, are actually doing any research and go around making spurious claims without any hard evidence
Point is is that, nowadays, if you really want to be taken seriously in science and publish, you best pursue some sort of STEM degree and befriend and work with those in the field
Robert Rivera
Sure, you just need boatloads of money. Much like the gentleman scientists of yore.
Juan Peterson
like the others have posted it DEF depends on the field. but to answer your question, yes, since if it is possible in one field then that is sufficient enough to answer your question. one example is theoretical physics. you could theoretically get a degree, then sit in your office and crunch numbers/try out theories you have. no equipment required other than a pen and imagination. now nobody would pay you to do this but you could do whatever you want. Something like experimental particle physics, for example, probably not as you would need extremely expensive equipment.
Adrian Peterson
but u'd have to do it as a hobby, not just as a "job" or a sole means of making money.
David Gomez
Ok, maybe physics may be out of budget reach but how about chemistry/biochemistry ? I think apart from the spectrometers and centrifuges it is just basically pee pee pee poo poo poo, glazees and shee, right ?
Austin Cox
Don't know much about modern chemistry/biochemistry, but I'd assume most of the actual "science" is being done on the nano-level, which would require expensive equipment. You don't really discover anything by mixing two things in a flask anymore. That's all been done.