Quote: Original post by Talroth
You don't need to be world renowned to be a scientist.

That's fine and dandy since I never said anything of the sort. [smile]

You are never a computer scientist because it's the lamest sounding profession ever. Working with computer science is fine. Being a software engineer is fine. Calling yourself a programmer is fine.

Computer scientist sounds like something from the 80's and that's never a good thing.

Quote: Original post by LockePick
You are never a computer scientist because it's the lamest sounding profession ever. Working with computer science is fine. Being a software engineer is fine. Calling yourself a programmer is fine.

Computer scientist sounds like something from the 80's and that's never a good thing.

HEY! I'm from the 80's!

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by nilkn

Quote: Original post by Talroth
"You're not a scientist till you have a degree!"
"You're not a scientist till you're published!"

Truth is, you're a scientist when you start doing SCIENCE. If you have sat down, developed a theory, tested this theory, and analyzed your results, then you are a scientist. Bits of paper do not make you a scientist. I nearly everyone I know with a degree does Not Do Science!

If you have done this in regards to the field of Computer Sciences, then you are a Computer Scientist!

If you're able to do genuine, original, and significant research without any advanced education of any kind, and if you are able to make your results known to the academic community without publishing anything at all, and if you are somehow still able to get your work rigorously peer-reviewed and accepted, then I would have no problem calling you a computer scientist.

But good luck doing that. [smile]

And what does any of that have to do with doing science? And why does a scientist need to do "significant" research? Have you actually looked at some of the topics that counts as 'research'? Go look up all the research that went into halftoning and dithering. Can you honestly tell me that all the variations on the Floyd-Steinberg algorithm can in anyway count as "significant".

"Oh look, I've changed where we're propagating the error to and how much is going where,..."

You don't need to be world renowned to be a scientist.

I'm with Talroth.

Quote: Original post by Promethium
That it's a protected title mean that only government approved institutions with a certain level of education can give out the title. You can't create a school in a shed in your back yard and start handing out titles to anyone who gives you money.

So, in short, you can call your self an computer scientist when you have a piece of paper that says so.

How would the worlds 1st computer scientist aquire this piece of paper though...? :)

I wrote a quick program to calculate this, and it says you can start calling yourself a computer scientist at 4:15pm GMT on the 5th of October.

Let me know if you find yourself unable to do so, I'm just working on a best-hypothesis here.

Whether or not you are literally a computer scientist, because your are doing 'science' with computers, probably isn't as important as the reaction the term will prompt from your peers. If you introduce yourself as a computer scientist, and they are introducing themselves as students who are studying whatever majors, then you'll come across as a bit over-ambitious and they might think you are silly.

Also, if you are a computer scientist, then I am a historian, political scientist, and theologist! Yay! I'll take my fat paycheck in the mail.

[Edited by - jack_1313 on October 3, 2009 10:15:50 PM]

Probably once you realise that computer science is neither about computers, nor particularly a science (in the sense that science is the application of the scientific method).

Quote: Original post by Kirl
How would the worlds 1st computer scientist aquire this piece of paper though...? :)

By inventing computer science!

Quote: Original post by LockePick
You are never a computer scientist because it's the lamest sounding profession ever. Working with computer science is fine. Being a software engineer is fine. Calling yourself a programmer is fine.

Computer scientist sounds like something from the 80's and that's never a good thing.

Meh. I'm not a software engineer, nor a programmer. My research is in CS, so I describe myself as a computer scientist. The name for the field is crap, I agree, but then so are the alternatives (Informatician? "Working with computer science"? God no.)