Ateism kui nõukogude teadus

Empirical investigations use empirical methods, data, and evidence. This banal observation appears to favour empiricism, especially in philosophy of science, though no rationalist ever denied their importance. Natural sciences often provide what appear to be, and are taken by scientists as, realist, causal explanations of natural phenomena, often in terms of forces or entities we do not perceive with our normal, unaided human senses. Empiricism has never been congenial to realism about such scientific posits. Bas van Fraassen’s “Constructive Empiricism” purports that realist interpretations of any “unobservables” mentioned by a scientific theory in principle always transcend whatever can be justified by that theory’s empirical adequacy, and that “explanations” are merely pragmatic, insofar as they are context‑specific to the presuppositions of whomever poses the question an explanation is to answer. Here I argue that “Constructive Empiricism” rests upon a series of flawed presumptions about natural science and about epistemology. I draw upon two main resources. One resource is the constraints upon specifically c ognitive reference to particulars, first identified by Kant (and later by Evans). The second is William Harper’s (2011) brilliant re‑analysis and defense of Newton’s Prin c ipia , which shows that, and how, Newton justified his realism about gravitational force. One surprise is that Kant’s semantics of singular cognitive reference (examined in §3) directly and strongly supports Newton’s Rule 4 of scientific method (§4), which strongly supports his realism about gravi‑ tational force (summarized in §2). A further surprise is that Hegel first recognized that this semantics of singular cognitive reference directly and strongly supports Newton’s meth odological Rule 4 of experimental philosophy in ways which support Newton’s realism about gravitational force, and about distance forces generally. The textual and exegetical issues these attributions require I examine elsewhere. Here I make these important findings available to philosophers and historians of science. (*) Invited paper

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrencilerin manevi sağlık ve hayata yönelimi belirlemeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaçla Fisher’ın (2010) geliştirdiği Spiritual Health and Life-Orientation Measure (SHALOM) envanteri Türkçe’ye uyarlanmıştır. Uyarlama çalışması Ankara ve Muş illerinde öğrenim gören üç çalışma grubu kapsamındaki 1591 lise öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Özgün formu dört boyut ve yirmi maddeden oluşan ve dili İngilizce olan envanter, Türkçeye çevrilmiş ve örneklem verileri üzerinde faktör analizleri ve geçerlik ile güvenirlik çalışması uygulanmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda Türkçeye uyarlanan envanter, özgün formu ile benzerlik gösteren dört boyuttan (kişisel, toplumsal, çevresel ve aşkın) oluşmaktadır. Ayrıca envanter boyutlarının iç tutarlık katsayılarının özgün envanter ile mükemmel uyumda olduğu ve ölçeğin amacına hizmet ettiği anlaşılmıştır. Bu sonuçlar dikkate alındığında, öğrencilerinin ruh sağlığı ve hayata yönelimlerinin ölçülmesinde Türkçeye uyarlanan Manevi Sağlık ve Hayata Yönelim Envanterinin, psikoloji, eğitim bilimleri ve sosyal bilimlerin farklı disiplinlerinde kullanılabileceği anlaşılmaktadır. Özet: Toplumsal alanın önemli bir dinamiği ve taşıyıcısı olan din kavramı, 18. Yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren ikili bir ayrıma gitmiş; din kavramı içerisinden, maneviyat kavramı rafine edilmeye başlanmıştır. Din ve maneviyat kavramlarını tanımlamak çok zordur; din, ideoloji ve inanç kurallarına odaklanırken; maneviyat, din ötesine uzanan bireysel deneyim ve karşılıklı ilişkileri merkeze almaktadır. Bu nedenle, farklı maneviyat ve din tanımları farklı bakış açılarından yapılmış ve bu çerçevede geliştirilen ölçeklerle maneviyatı ölçmek amaçlanmıştır. Bununla birlikte, farklı maneviyat ölçekleri ile yapılan çalışmalardan elde edilen sonuçlar birbirinden önemli ölçüde farklı olmuştur; bu ise maneviyatın kullanılan ölçeğe bağlı olarak tanımlandığı ve kavramsallaştırıldığı anlamına gelir. Maneviyat üzerine yapılan erken dönem çalışmalarda çoğunlukla din, sağlık, psikoloji ve çalışma hayatı üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışmalarda, maneviyat kavramı tanımlandıktan sonra; kavramın sağlık, din, psikoloji ve iş hayatı ile ilişkisi veya insan hayatı için gerekliliği tartışılmaktadır. Batı'da, 1950'lere kadar, din ve maneviyat kavramları birbirleri ile ilişkili biçimde kullanılmıştır. Ancak bugün bu iki kavram neredeyse tamamen birbirinden ayrılmıştır. Literatürde, maneviyatı ölçmek için çok sayıda envanter geliştirme çalışması bulunmaktadır. Envanterin farklı kavramsal temellere dayanarak çalışması gerçeği, ruh sağlığı ve yaşam yönelimi hakkında genel, anlamlı ve tutarlı bir sonuç çıkarmayı zorlaştırır. Ayrıca, maneviyat ölçümlerinin yabancı bir kültürün dinini ve değerlerini yansıttığı gerçeğinden hareketle kapsamlı veya evrensel ölçüm söz konusu olamaz. Bu noktada, Fisher, maneviyatı ölçmek amacıyla geliştirilen ölçme araçlarını "din ile maneviyatı karıştırdıkları", "değerler dünyasına bağlı olmak", "kültürel farklılıkları hesaba katmamak", "ve sadece mistik / manevi tecrübe " noktasında eleştirir. Sonuç olarak, Batı'nın kavramsal yapısında geliştirilen hiçbir ölçümün kültürel esnekliği hesaba katmadığı ve manevi değerlerini evrensel ya da yaygın olarak kabul etmediği söylenebilir.Bu çalışma ile Türk kültürüne adapte edilmesi planlanan, Fisher tarafından geliştirilen SHALOM envanteri, kişilerarası ilişki dünyasını oluşturan dört temel (bireysel, sosyal, çevresel ve aşkın) alana dayanan modele dayanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Fisher'ın çalışmalarında olduğu gibi, maneviyat kavramı, dinden bağımsız ve dinlerin üzerinde olduğu düşünülen farklı yoğunluktaki kavramlarla etkileşimini vurgulamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, maneviyat kavramı, kişinin kişisel alanı, sosyal konumu, doğası ve aşkın gücü ile iletişim içindedir. Bu uyarlama çalışması, öğrencilerin ruhsal sağlık düzeyleri hakkında faydalı bilgiler ve yorumlar sağlayacaktır. Ayrıca kültürel esnekliğe sahip olduğu vurgulanan ve farklı dillere de uyarlanan SHALOM envanterinin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması ile din psikolojisi literatürüne yeni ve farklı bir ölçme aracı sunularak maneviyat kavramının doğasının anlaşılması çalışmaları kolaylaşacaktır.Bu araştırma, öğrenciler için geliştirilen ruhsal sağlık ve yaşam yönelimi ölçeğinin envanterini Türk kültürüne uyarlamak için yapılmıştır. Bu envanter uyarlama çalışması Ankara ve Muş illerindeki üç çalışma grubundan ve 1591 lise öğrencisinden toplanan verilerle yapılmıştır. İlk çalışma grubu 414, ikinci çalışma grubu 788, üçüncü grup ise 389 lise öğrencisinden oluşmuştur. 414 öğrenciden toplanan veriler Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) analizi için, 788 öğrenciden toplanan veriler Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) için kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, envanterin ölçüt geçerliliğini belirlemek için 389 öğrenci kullanılmıştır. Türkçe'ye uyarlanması amaçlanan SHALOM envanterinin asıl dili İngilizce'dir ve çeviri çalışmaları, her iki dilin de dilbilgisi ve anlamsal özelliklerini bilen üç dil uzmanı tarafından ayrı ayrı yürütülmüştür. Çeviri çalışmalarından sonra ölçek örnekleme grubuna uygulanmış ve örneklem veriler üzerinde AFA uygulanmıştır. AFA sonuçları değerlendirildiğinde, orijinal envantere benzeyen bir faktör çatısının oluştuğu tespit edilmiştir. Belirleyici faktörlere, SHALOM'un orijinal formundaki teorik ve boyut isimleri dikkate alınarak uygun isimler (kişisel, çevresel, sosyal ve aşkın) verilmiştir. Yapı geçerliği Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile teyit edilmiş ve DFA'nın bir sonucu olarak, X2/sd (1.72) oranı ve IFI (0.96) uyum göstergesinin test edilen modele uygun olduğu belirlenmiştir.Sonuç olarak, Manevi Sağlık ve Hayata Yönelim Envanterinin, orijinal envanterde olduğu gibi dört boyuttan oluştuğu, envanter boyutlarının iç tutarlılık katsayılarının asıl envanterle mükemmel uyum içinde olduğu ve ölçeğin amacına hizmet ettiği anlaşılmaktadır. Bu sonuçlar göz önüne alındığında, Türkçe'ye uyarlanmış olan Manevi Sağlık ve Hayata Yönelim Envanterinin, din psikolojisi, eğitim bilimleri ve sosyal bilimlerin farklı disiplinlerinde kullanılabileceği anlaşılmaktadır. Maneviyat, sadece Batılı kuramlar çerçevesinde tanımlanmamalı, İslamın öngördüğü maneviyatın niteliği ve olabilirliği tartışılmalıdır. Dahası İslam maneviyatının tipleri ve boyutları, İslami bir karakterde kültürel öznellik dikkate alınarak belirlenmelidir. Maneviyatı ölçme çalışmalarında, modernitenin evrensel olarak sunduğu insan modeli tek hakikat olarak kabul edilmemelidir. İslam kültür ve tarihi içerisinden süzülerek gelen, bize özgü ve bizi tanımlayan insan modelleri geliştirilmeye çalışılmalıdır. Bu husus, sadece ruh sağlığı/din çalışmalarında değil, genel anlamda din psikolojisi calışmalarında dikkate alınmalıdır. Bunun yanında kültüre özgülük önemsenmeli, Türk medeniyetinin İslam doktrini ile geliştirdiği kültürel birikimden edinilen tecrübeyle maneviyat çalışmalarına yön verilmelidir. Bu açıdan, bu çalışma farklı bir kültüre ait değer ve manevi yönelimi, Türk kültürüne uyarlama amacını gütse de kavramın Batı değerleri ile kurgulanması sorunludur. Ayrıca Batı değerlerinin, İslam değer ve ilkeleri ile benzeşmesine rağmen, uygulamada maneviyat kavramını tam olarak ölçmekte zorlanabileceği öngörülmektedir.

Was atheism in the ancient world really ‘scarcely imaginable’? This thesis confronts the notion that religion was embedded in the environment and mentality of the ancient Greeks to the extent that atheism became cognitively impossible. Instead this thesis proposes that if atheism, rather than atheists, is made the focus then it is possible to examine atheism in the ancient world through a set of different thematic lenses. Atheism in ancient Greece was a highly contextual, varied, and flourishing set of phenomena. Understanding the form and evolution of atheistic ideas and atheism in Greek society is invaluable in helping us more fully understand Greek religion, not least because it was in response to and through opposition to atheism that Greek religious beliefs evolved and Greeks developed their own sense of collective and individual religious identity.

This article analyses the role of science and scientific research in the modern world, highlighting the importance of scientific research methodology in the development of modern science. Science, along with education, is considered to be two of the most crucial spheres in society's future. Throughout history, mankind has employed knowledge to study and organize the world. The Renaissance period is recognized as a pivotal phase in the development of science, laying the groundwork for classical natural science and serving as the basis for the emergence of social sciences, known as "humanities." In the XVIII and XIX centuries, the philosophy of science emerged, focusing on the analysis of scientific activity and the scientific process itself. Theoretical and methodological principles of science were developed, scientific theory was examined, and distinctions were made between gnoseology, logic, and the methodology of science. Within the field of science studies, it is emphasized that professional scientists adhere to specific methodological principles in their research, particularly the dialectic interaction between empirical and theoretical knowledge. Fundamental and applied research represent different levels of the scientific pursuit of truth, employing diverse methodologies consisting of rules, principles, and research methods. Modern science encompasses a multilevel concept of scientific knowledge methodology, encompassing philosophical, general scientific, and partial research methods. These methods possess unique characteristics across different disciplines and hold varying significance for their respective development. Philosophical methods are universal and abstract in nature, while general scientific methods aid in the analysis of existing practices and the current state of theory development. Commonly recognized general research methods and techniques include analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction, abstraction and generalization, modelling, statistical methods, and analogy. Moreover, the interconnectedness of various scientific disciplines in contemporary times has led to the increased utilization of approaches and methods from one field in another, giving rise to intra- and interdisciplinary methods.

Observing the environment and recoganizing patterns for the purpose of decision making are fundamental to any scientific enquiry. Pattern recognition is a scientific discipline so much so that it enables perception in machines and also it has applications in diverse technology areas. Among the scientific community, statistical pattern recognition has received considerable attention in recent years. The statistical pattern recognition challenges are mostly approached by Hidden Markov Models (HMMs). A Hidden Markov Model (HMM) is a probabilistic mathematical discrete structure with the state emission probabilities apart from consisting the components of a probabilistic finite state automaton (PFA). Over the years, researches have been carried out to study the relations between HMM and PFA. Probabilistic finite state automata are mathematical models constructed to generate distributions over a set of strings. The computation of the probability of generating a string as a total, and a string with given prefix or suffix have important applications in the field of parsing. In this attempt, the Semi Probabilistic Finite State Automata (Semi-PA), the most general class of Probabilistic Automata is discussed in detail. AMS Classification: 68Q10 and 68Q45.

Planning research-understood as research aiming to improve the body of knowledge on which spatial planning is based-includes issues rooted both in the social sciences, natural science and the humanities. Spatial planners need knowledge about the likely consequences of different alternatives of action, as well as understanding of the role of plans and planning processes in the development of society. This is reflected in the two-fold focus of planning research on both substantive and procedural issues. Whereas research on the role of plans and planning processes takes place mainly within a non-positivist social science paradigm, the research aiming to provide planners with the knowledge needed in order to make good plans is often situated in the battlefield between opposing positions within theory of science. Because planning research has both society and the physical as its subject of inquiry, a reflective opinion about the interaction between the physical environment and human actions is crucial. Traditionally, many spatial planners have conceived of this in a quite näive way, assuming that human behaviour can to a high extent be shaped or controlled by manipulating the physical environment. During recent decades, this view has been sharply criticized by anti-positivist scholars, and some theorists point out the great uncertainty, close to impossibility, in predicting human actions, even at an aggregate scale. The latter position has dramatic implications to spatial planning, as it would then be impossible to assess whether a certain physical solution is likely to have positive or negative social and related environmental consequences, e.g. in terms of travelling distances and modal split. Our own position is that the physical environment, along with a number of individual and non-physical structural factors, influences human activities and quality of life. To some extent, this influence can be predicted at an aggregate scale, but not for a particular individual (except those actions rendered impossible by the laws of physics). How strong influence the physical environment exerts, is a question requiring empirical research in order to be answered.

Introduction The term “scientist” lacks a universally accepted definition, reflecting the evolving, interdisciplinary nature of scientific work and posing challenges for recognition, communication, and policy. This study aims to develop consensus-based definitions of the term “scientist” by engaging experienced scholars across diverse fields. Methods This study involved 156 scholars, each with at least 1,000 citations, recruited via convenience sampling. Fourteen scientist definitions, derived from literature and expert input, were assessed using a nine-point Likert scale via a structured google forms survey. The sample size was calculated using G*power (effect size = 0.5, power = 0.95), requiring at least 80 participants. Content Validity Index (CVI) was used for analysis. Definitions scoring ≥0.78 were accepted and included for final analysis, 0.70–0.78 were revised and re-evaluated, and <0.70 were excluded. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, ensuring ethical compliance and confidentiality. Results Of the 14 proposed definitions, six (42.9%) were excluded (CVI < 0.70), seven (50.0%) were accepted (CVI > 0.78), and one (7.1%) underwent revision (CVI 0.70–0.78). The highest-rated definitions were refined into two consensus-based versions: a short definition (“A scientist is a person who conducts research”) and a detailed one emphasizing hypothesis formulation and knowledge dissemination. Final validation yielded CVIs of 0.82 and 0.84, respectively, confirming strong expert agreement on both definitions. Conclusion This study developed two validated definitions of “scientist” emphasizing systematic research and knowledge dissemination. These definitions clarify the concept of scientific identity, providing a flexible yet rigorous framework applicable across academic, interdisciplinary, and policy-making contexts. Introduction The term "scientist" has undergone significant transformation since its inception, reflecting the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry and the evolving landscape of knowledge. This lack of clarity stems from the diverse roles and contributions of individuals in scientific fields, the evolving nature of research, and the interdisciplinary scope of modern science. Historically, figures such as Galileo and Newton were regarded as natural philosophers, a reflection of an earlier framework for knowledge production that has evolved alongside modern scientific advancements. Before twentieth century, the term "scientist" was commonly referred to as a "man of science," "natural philosopher," or by various other designations [1,2]. In contemporary contexts, scientists operate across a broad spectrum of fields, including medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences, each employing methodologies tailored to their specific inquiries. For instance, biologists may design experiments to test hypotheses about living organisms, while social scientists might use qualitative methods to explore human behavior [3]. The Science Council defines a scientist as an individual who methodically collects and applies research and evidence to develop hypotheses, performs experiments, and shares results to advance knowledge in their field [4]. While National Cancer Institute defines a scientist as an individual with a background in science, particularly someone actively engaged in a specific area of research [5]. This diversity in practices underscores the challenge of defining "scientist" in a way that captures the breadth of their contributions. The plurality of definitions extends to global organizations and frameworks. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization highlights the critical role of scientists in addressing global challenges and promoting sustainable development. This definition broadens the scope to include individuals working in multidisciplinary teams or applying scientific knowledge to public policy and societal issues. Similarly, some academic discussions focus on the characteristics of a scientist, such as curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to evidence-based conclusions, rather than formal qualifications or job titles [6]. Unlike well-defined professions such as medicine or engineering, where specific educational pathways and professional titles (e.g., "doctor" or "engineer") confer clear identities, the term "scientist" lacks a universally recognized credentialing system. This absence can lead to underrepresentation or misrepresentation of scientific expertise, especially in interdisciplinary and collaborative contexts [7]. For example, the growing integration of data science in biology or physics illustrates the importance of understanding who qualifies as a scientist to ensure effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The absence of a standardized definition poses practical challenges for scientific communication, policymaking, and inclusivity. This study aims to address this gap by engaging scholars across disciplines to develop a consensus-based definition of "scientist." By recognizing the diverse and interdisciplinary contributions of scientists, such a definition could enhance collaboration, improve public understanding, and inform policies that support the scientific community. Methods Study design and participants A total of 156 scholars (out of 300 invited) participated in this study. Eligibility was determined based on the scholars' substantial academic expertise, evidenced by the achievement of at least 1,000 citations within their respective fields. This criterion ensured that participants had significant research experience and were highly qualified to contribute to the formulation of a consensus-based definition of "scientist." Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method, and data were collected via a structured survey administered through google forms. While convenience sampling was used due to the accessibility of high-citation scholars, efforts were made to ensure disciplinary diversity to mitigate potential bias. Personalized invitations were sent via email to each scholar to facilitate their inclusion in the study. Sample size determination The sample size was determined using G*power statistical software (version 3.1.9.7), employing a two-tailed goodness of fit test with an effect size of 0.5, an alpha error probability of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.95. According to the calculations, a minimum of 80 participants were required to achieve statistically valid results. Consequently, 156 scholars were recruited to participate in the study, ensuring robust representation and adequate statistical power. Data collection Fourteen proposed definitions of "scientist," curated from existing literature and expert contributions, were presented to the enrolled scholars for evaluation (Table 1). Each definition included a Likert scale with nine response options, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Responses were systematically recorded and compiled in an Excel sheet for subsequent analysis. This process facilitated the systematic capture of scholarly consensus on each definition. Table 1. Respondent Agreement on Various 'Scientist' Definitions. Proposed Definitions Options A person studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences. (Oxford Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert who studies or works in one of the sciences. (Cambridge Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person learned in science and especially natural science. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. (Science Council) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who has studied science and whose job is to teach or do research in science. (Collins Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences. (Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person with some kind of knowledge or expertise in any of the sciences. (Vocabulary dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems. (Britannica Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation. (National Cancer Institute) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone who works or is trained in science. (Longman Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person whose profession is investigating in one of the natural sciences. (Your Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science. (Free Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone whose job or education is about science. (LanGeek Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. (Wikipedia) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Data analysis The Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed to assess the relevance and agreement of the definitions. Definitions with a CVI below 0.70 were excluded, as they failed to meet the minimum threshold for consensus. Definitions with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 underwent a second round of evaluation, with refined wording sent back to the same scholars for further review. Definitions achieving a CVI above 0.78 were deemed sufficiently valid for inclusion in the final analysis [8]. These definitions formed the foundation for the development of a unified, consensus-based definition of "scientist." Ethical considerations Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all responses were anonymized to preserve participant confidentiality. Results Initially, out of the 14 proposed definitions of the term "scientist," six (42.9%) received a CVI score below the threshold of 0.70 and were consequently excluded from further consideration. In contrast, seven definitions (50.0%) demonstrated strong content validity with CVI scores equal to or exceeding 0.78 and were therefore retained for subsequent synthesis and analysis. Only one definition (7.1%) fell within the intermediate range, with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 (Table 2). Table 2. Comparison of Agreement and CVI Across Proposed Definitions of 'Scientist'. Proposed Definition Agree Disagree Undecided CVI Status Science Council Definition 146 8 2 0.94 Accepted Britannica Dictionary Definition 136 16 4 0.87 Accepted Cambridge Dictionary 130 20 6 0.83 Accepted Wikipedia Definition 125 27 4 0.80 Accepted Free Dictionary Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted National Cancer Institute Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted Collins Dictionary Definition 122 31 3 0.78 Accepted Oxford Dictionary Definition 120 31 5 0.77 Revised Longman Dictionary Definition 104 42 10 0.67 Excluded Your Dictionary Definition 103 48 5 0.66 Excluded Dictionary (generic) Definition 91 52 13 0.58 Excluded Vocabulary dictionary Definition 88 58 10 0.56 Excluded Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition 81 64 11 0.52 Excluded LanGeek Dictionary Definition 79 67 10 0.51 Excluded CVI: Content Validity Index, CVI Thresholds: Accepted: ≥ 0.78, Revised: 0.70–0.78, Excluded: < 0.70 Through a rigorous, iterative evaluation process involving expert feedback, the definitions with the highest CVI scores (those above 0.78) were integrated and refined into two distinct, consensus-based definitions of the term "scientist." The first was a concise definition: “A scientist is a person who conducts research.” The second was a more comprehensive and elaborated definition: “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These two final definitions were subsequently circulated among the panel of scholars for a second round of evaluation, during which they were asked to rate the definitions for content validity. The short definition received a CVI of 0.82, while the more detailed definition attained a slightly higher CVI of 0.84, reflecting strong agreement among the experts. Although no additional formal qualitative feedback was solicited at this stage; minor wording adjustments were made based on informal suggestions received during this validation round. Discussion The role of a scientist extends far beyond the stereotypical image of an individual in a white coat working exclusively in a laboratory setting. Careers grounded in scientific expertise are remarkably diverse, encompassing domains such as research, education, industry, and regulatory affairs. The Science Council categorizes scientists into 10 different types, highlighting the diversity of scientific roles beyond the stereotypical lab-based researcher. It includes types such as experimental scientists, theoretical scientists, data scientists, and more, reflecting the broad spectrum of scientific work today [9]. Definitions of the term “scientist” vary, yet they generally converge on the principles of systematic inquiry, evidence-based investigation, and the pursuit of knowledge across various disciplines. For instance, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Britannica Dictionary emphasize formal training and research functions, typically within the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, or physics [10,11]. In contrast, contemporary perspectives, such as those discussed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2024, recognize a broader spectrum of scientific engagement, encompassing both professional researchers and individuals committed to understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and analysis [12]. In light of this diversity, the present study aimed to clarify and formalize the definition of a "scientist" through expert consensus. Two definitions were developed: a concise definition “A scientist is a person who conducts research”, and a comprehensive definition “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These definitions encapsulate the core activities and guiding principles of scientific inquiry, emphasizing both methodological rigor and the essential role of knowledge dissemination across disciplines. A key finding of this study lies in its recognition of the evolving tension between disciplinary specialization and the increasing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. As highlighted in contemporary analyses of interdisciplinary research and development, scientists now frequently operate at the intersection of multiple fields, such as nanomedicine, where the diversity and dissimilarity of collaborators’ knowledge can significantly enhance research productivity [13]. The concise definition, "A scientist is a person who conducts research" captures this shift by avoiding constraints tied to specific disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the more detailed definition explicitly incorporates the systematic formulation and testing of hypotheses, along with the dissemination of knowledge, thereby reinforcing the structured and communicative nature of scientific inquiry. These elements align closely with UNESCO’s 2019 call for stronger science-society engagement and underscore the ethical responsibilities inherent in modern scientific practice [14]. The study’s findings also contribute to ongoing debates surrounding professional identity within the scientific community. In contrast to regulated professions such as medicine, the absence of a universal credentialing system for scientists complicates formal recognition, particularly in non-academic and interdisciplinary contexts. This ambiguity is reflected in the National Cancer Institute’s pragmatic definition of a scientist, which emphasizes active participation in research rather than reliance on formal titles or qualifications [15]. By anchoring the term “scientist” in core research activities rather than occupational labels, the consensus-based definitions proposed in this study offer a more inclusive framework. This approach accommodates emerging roles in fields such as data science and applied research, thereby addressing the risk of under recognition in collaborative and cross-sector environments. The dual definitions, concise and comprehensive, offer flexibility for different contexts, a strategy aligned with the Science Council’s emphasis on methodological diversity [4]. The detailed definition’s focus on systematic inquiry and dissemination aligns with studies of interdisciplinary science, where “impassioned commitment” to shared goals drives innovation [13]. Simultaneously, the availability of a concise definition enhances clarity in public discourse and science communication, while the more detailed version provides the specificity necessary for institutional contexts such as policy development, research funding, and professional accreditation. Notably, the study’s findings also challenge enduring stereotypes of the “lone genius” scientist by highlighting the inherently collaborative and iterative nature of scientific practice. Contemporary frameworks, such as those emerging from computational biology, suggest that scientific identity is increasingly dynamic, pluralistic, and shaped by collective knowledge production [16]. The process undertaken in this study, involving successive refinement and expert validation of definitions, closely mirrors the recursive logic of the scientific method itself. This methodological alignment is particularly salient in fields like nutritional epidemiology, where the replication of findings remains a persistent challenge and iterative inquiry is essential for refining evidence [17]. Despite the methodological rigor and expert involvement, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed convenience sampling, which may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Although participants were selected based on a minimum citation threshold to ensure scholarly expertise, this criterion may have inadvertently excluded emerging researchers or experts with significant practical contributions who have not yet achieved high citation metrics. Second, the use of an online survey format may have constrained participant engagement, as scholars with limited availability or preference for alternative formats may have been underrepresented. Additionally, response bias cannot be ruled out, as those with a particular interest in the topic or in defining scientific identity may have been more inclined to participate, potentially skewing the results. Future refinements of the definition should also consider voices from non-academic scientific contexts including those in industry, policy, and community-based science who are increasingly central to addressing complex global challenges. Conclusion By engaging experienced scholars across disciplines, this study establishes two validated definitions of “scientist” that emphasize systematic research activity and knowledge dissemination. These definitions offer a structured yet adaptable framework for understanding scientific identity, balancing clarity with flexibility. They help address the ambiguity surrounding the term “scientist,” providing a foundation for improved communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-informed policy development. Importantly, they remain open to future refinement as scientific practice continues to evolve. Declarations Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Patient consent (participation and publication): Not applicable. Funding: The present study received no financial support. Acknowledgements: None to be declared. Authors' contributions: JG, MM, SB, BS, VS, ASN, SHM, HAH, AGH, ADS, RAK, WRR, AB, GB, SS, SN, CJ, PL, MSS, ZK, MC, AM, SK, FCT, FB, FRK, MAM, AA, VK, DH, PM, VRM, MSA, EA, and RV were significant contributors to the conception of the study, voting for the items. FHK, BAA, and AMM were involved in the literature review, manuscript writing, and data analysis and interpretation. FHK and AMM Confirmation of the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Use of AI: ChatGPT-3.5 was used to assist in language editing and improving the clarity of the manuscript. All content was reviewed and verified by the authors. Authors are fully responsible for the entire content of their manuscript. Data availability statement: Not applicable.

INTRODUCTION Though it was initiated by Pythagoras, expanded in Plato's Timeaus , comprehensively developed by Aristotle, and healthy throughout the Mediaeval, Renaissance and Modern periods well into the nineteenth century, in the twentieth century among analytic and scientifically minded philosophers, “philosophy of nature” apparently vanished. Fortunately, the increasing calibre of recent research in history, methodology and philosophy of science has once again revealed fascinating issues at the intersections among the natural sciences, scientific methodology, history of science, and philosophy of science, which today - precisely because no discipline can plausibly monopolize them - are rightly designated philosophy of nature. Placing Hegel's notorious Philosophy of Nature within this interdisciplinary area does not yet illumine it. Hegel classifies his philosophy of nature as rational physics. “Rational physics” may sound quaint, outdated, and even presumptuous. However, Newton identified the genre of the Principia as “rational mechanics” (a proper part of rational physics), and rational physics remains a serious discipline today, with professional journals and recent textbooks to show for it. “Rational physics” is physical theory which emphasizes the conceptual foundations and basic principles of physics and how these can be used to explain particular physical phenomena, rendering them comprehensible. This is the key aim of Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature , because sufficient analysis of the conceptual foundations of natural sciences requires philosophical resources which complement the resources found within scientific theories and methods, which alone, he argues, are insufficient to the task.

The science education literature suggests that the public and students often hold narrow stereotypical views of scientists and science. Here we argue that it is important that students and the public understand the basis on which scientists make scientific claims. The inquiry sought to develop an understanding of the scientific mind, explored through Gauld’s (2005) notion of ‘habits of mind’. The vehicle used to explore these ideas consisted of an inquiry into how scientists rationalise conflicts between scientific theories and religious beliefs which are not in agreement with consensually‐accepted scientific theories. Twenty scientists from different scientific disciplines and levels of seniority were interviewed using as a basis an instrument containing a series of religious‐based item statements that a panel of scientific and religious experts considered were in agreement with a variety of religious doctrines yet in disagreement with current scientific thinking, or for which there is at present no supporting evidence from a variety of scientific disciplines. These statements acted as an interview protocol and formed the basis for interactive discourse, which was audio‐taped, transcribed verbatim and participant‐validated. These data provide a window into scientific thinking as practiced by modern scientists, and helps develop a picture of these scientists’ ‘habits of mind’. The findings suggest that these scientists, unlike their stereotype, hold idiosyncratic views of what constitutes good scientific evidence and sound, credible testimony.

Abstract. This study aims to obtain innovative and interactive teaching materials integrated scientific approach and involves a web-based information technology. This type of research, including research and development (research and development). Subjects were subject redox reaction and electrochemistry teaching materials. Meanwhile, the sample used in this study consisted of 20 students majoring in chemistry chemistry education courses of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Medan and 2 lecturers basic courses at the State University of Medan. Selection of the sample using purposive sampling technique. The results of chemical analysis of teaching materials common is that the teaching materials are quite valid, but need to be developed from various aspects. Teaching materials that have been developed validated by expert validator. Assessment is done based on a standard questionnaire BSNP (National Education Standards Agency). Based on research data obtained an average of 22 respondents think that consists of 2 professors and 20 students on the quality of teaching materials developed 3.22 belonging to the criteria of a very valid means of the development of teaching materials is very feasible for use in learning. Elaboration of the overall average respondent to the quality of teaching materials developed are the average results of the assessment of General Chemistry lecturers in the amount of 3.40 and an average student assessment results Chemistry education that is equal to 3.04. Keywords : research and development (R&D), redox reaction and electrochemistry, scientific approach

This research aims at understanding teaching, t1ainlng, scientific research of reforming the tactics of China's competitive sport integrate, explore from policy evolution to roles function and countermeasure and proposing. The way studied through analysis of documents and history in this research, consult a large amount of documents and materials is put with analyze in order, approach a subject and propose some following results and propose to this research institute: 1. build and construct the sports universities and colleges and has not reached and built and formed and trained the ideal goal on integrated bases of scientific research for teaching yet, it is that the competitive sport reforms the focal point in the China 21st century 2. put emphasis on it is the policy that China returns to the global sport that science and technology serve the importance with tackling of key scientific arid technical problems, it is to train the integrated idea of scientific research to want the gold medal from science bring the new direction fur the development of sports activity of China, 《fundamental of Rising Contribute Ability for Olympic Games》 policy define teaching train the integrated importance of scientific research3. put forward several great scientific and technological problem research approaches about the fact that the competitive sport of our country is developed》 in initial stage of 21st century, put emphasis on the importance of turning the sports universities and colleges into scientific research, training, teaching and combining by three-in-one on the base again, implement 《fundamental of Rising Contribute Ability for Olympic Games (2001-20l0 years)》, 《the sports reform and development outline of 200l-20l0 year》, and the wanting one of policy of 《scientific and technical development plan of sports of 1991-2000 year》, it is China that becomes the indispensable tactics of powerful country of the competitive sport of the 4orld even more.

Objective To explore the effect of nursing scientific research training based on system cybernetics. Methods The system cybernetics was applied in the scientific research training of 116 inservice nurses. The 4-level nursing scientific research management system which consisted of the mentor, research team, department head nurse and the director of nursing department was implemented. The key point of the training process was controlled from the aspects of training goal, curriculum content, teacher control, training method, information exchange, curriculum schedule and training effect. The scientific research ability, the scientific research quantity and the teaching satisfaction of nurses were compared between the data before and after training. Results After training, according to the scores of self-rating scientific research ability scale, the ability of finding problems (2.56±0.34) , the ability of consulting literature (2.78±0.31) , the ability of designing scientific researches (2.60±0.4) , the ability of processing data (2.35±0.39) , the ability of writing dissertation (2.41±0.37) , the practice ability of scientific researches (2.38±0.29) of 116 inservice nurses were all significantly higher than the data before training (t=30.404, 38.513, 26.951, 23.041, 25.069, 27.655; P<0.01) . After training, the numbers of written dissertations (116) , published papers (43) , project applications (20) , project approvals (8) were all higher than the data before training. The teaching satisfaction degree of nurses after training was higher than that before training. Conclusions The nursing scientific research training based on system cybernetics can effectively improve the scientific research ability of nurses and stimulate their studying enthusiasm. Key words: Nurses; System cybernetics; Nursing scientific research; Training

Diversos são os caminhos que permitem a abordagem do tema ciência e religião. Tentaremos percorrer um deles. Ciência e religião são instituições históricas seculares que compartilharam saberes produzidos pela mesma humanidade que criou ambas. Na história humana ocidental, existem saberes comuns às religiões abraâmicas e ao interesse da ciência. Alguns desses saberes continuam sendo fontes de inspiração para pesquisa científica. Foram difundidos antes do nascimento da ciência moderna, e estiveram no centro da revolução científica do século XVII, prevalecendo atuais em ciência e em religião, não obstante o distanciamento doutrinário entre ambas. Finalmente, algumas palavras sobre interesse atual em ciência e religião.

Rethinking the Ph.D. dissertation in botany: Widening the circle.

Objective to investigate the effect of the scientific research projects established within the Hospital on mobilizing the enthusiasm of the medical staff of the Hospital,improving their scientific research quality,and promoting the scientific research development of the Hospital.Methods through analyzing the devotion to the projects within the Hospital and establishment of projects out of the hospital in recent 8 years,as well as output of scientific research achievements and paper publication.Results The scientific research output is increased significant than the previous years,activities of the researchers were encouraged,financial fund is increased somewhat,and the level of research achievements and paper publication are increasing gradually year by year.Conclusions The scientific research projects established within Hospital play a promotion role for the development of scientific research of the Hospital. Key words: Scientific research subject in hospital; Hospital development; Hospital administration