Right.
This is correct. He's not a formal scientist at all.
Yes...the problem is that like so many accolades nowadays, they give out the title "scientist" like candy without defining it. Bill Nye and Fr. Paul Robinson all may get called "scientists" as a sort of accolade, when in reality neither fit the strict definition.
In the traditional academic "job description" sense, a scientist was someone who developed specialized knowledge or expertise via a long process of research formation (usually via completing a PhD. program), and who then was actively performing new research and contributing new knowledge to that specific field (usually via publishing). It's not just about reading books and passing tests via regurgitation of those facts, or having a science as your undergrad major. Therefore, simply obtaining a bachelor's (or even a
non-thesis master's) in biology or engineering etc. does
not necessarily qualify one to be a job-description level "scientist"; no formal research training is involved. There might be "scientific" insights, but you wouldn't strictly speaking be qualified as a research scientist.
And since fields in natural science are so big and detailed, unless you are a "Rennaissance man" genius, most of your expertise is going to be in the field you initially studied. That is a
huge limitation which is often swept under the carpet. A PhD. who studies insects might be qualified to answer a question about bee anatomy or physiology, but is probably not going to be qualified to answer a question about fighter jet design like a PhD. physicist, and vice-versa. An honest scientist needs to know their limitations. And in the same way there can be bad and good clergy, there can be bad and good scientists.
Therefore, it could be argued that Fr. Robinson is not of the highest scientific qualification for the scientific subjects in question, or at least cannot be elevated on a pedestal as more qualified than many others.
Topic: Fr Robinson SSPX SSPX's most dangerous man. (Read 5158 times)