Question: When is a scientist not really a scientist?

Ummm...let's see....

George Will put it to a "Republican" presidential candidate:
...For Jon Huntsman: You, who preen about having cornered the market on good manners, recently tweeted, “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”
Call you sarcastic. In the 1970s, would you have trusted scientists predicting calamity from global cooling? Are scientists a cohort without a sociology – uniquely homogenous and unanimous, without factions or interests and impervious to peer pressures or the agendas of funding agencies?
Are the hundreds of scientists who are skeptical that human activities are increasing global temperatures not really scientists?
Here at Redneck Mansion, the answer to this post's title question is: For some people, probably at about the same point that an attorney is not really an attorney.  In an article in the Tompkins Weekly on gas drilling bans and DSEC:
DRAC leaders believe the bans will hold up in court, and have even questioned the motives of the some of the DSEC members. “Our bans will hold up in court. Mr. Kramer states he is an attorney, however, unless one is viscerally educated as to how industry's deliberate, calculated and frankly disturbing practices, one would be ill equipped to comment professionally, about the industry and its effects on our state.
"Viscerally educated"?
Good grief.


Lawyer, lawyer, who's a lawyer? All you have to do to check who is a bona fide lawyer is to go on the web. All duly admitted NY State attorneys are listed there. So, this Kramer guy does not merely state he is an attorney, he is one. There are no law schools that teaches "viscerally," try arguing your viscera in court and see what happens. But then if one is not "viscerally educated" it would seem one has no right to speak and anything that is said can be dismissed. So much for free speech and the First Amendment. Have you ever noticed that when the politically correct can't argue a position on the merits, they resort to personal attacks on the messenger? Kramer should be complimented. He must be getting under DRAC's skin. Publius

Heh. Thanks, Publius.

Being just a country boy, I couldn’t figure out what “viscerally educated” meant, so I looked at the Thesaurus for visceral. (No dictionary handy.) The Thesaurus says: intuitive; instinctive; primitive; primeval. As an antonym, it lists “factual”. Apparently, Joanne Cippola-Dennis has an intuitive / primitive understanding of “the industry’s deliberate, calculated and frankly disturbing practices”, while Attorney Kramer has a factual understanding of the same. And there, in a nutshell, is the difference between the Dryden SEC and DRAC; facts versus intuition. Congratulations, Henry, the DRAC leaders are paying you a compliment when they say you are not “viscerally educated”; your education is based on facts, not intuition.