Rod's Alter Ego

Why Car Mechanics are Scientists

Recently Master claimed that a scientist is anyone who practices the scientific method.

What is the scientific method?

We propose that it must begin with a clear identification of a problem. That should be followed by a review of any relevant data or hypotheses that may exist to support a solution to the problem, followed by experiments which test additional hypotheses and, finally, a scientist should logically condense of all this into a new solution to the problem.

Compare this definition to the one at Wikipedia:

“Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories.”

That sounds pretty close to our admittedly mouthful of a definition, but what constitutes a theory? It’s is a term used in a number of contexts, but with regard to science Wikipedia says:

“A theory is in this context [science] a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together.”

In the form of theories, then, adds nothing to the definition, since the use of logic was already stated as a necessary part of the definition, and a theory is merely a logically bound set of hypotheses.

There are two notable differences between our definition and Wikipedia’s: 1) we use solution to problem whereas they say explanation for natural phenomena, and 2) we contend that the solution should be new, whereas as theirs does not, at least not explicitly. The first difference could be viewed as merely semantic, but we’re comfortable preferring this part of Wikipedia’s definition to our own.

Who cares? Well, it came up recently because Master was skeptical of the implied claim that medical doctors are not scientists. Let’s apply Wikipedia’s definition to find out. Surely patients with illnesses are natural phenomena. Just as surely, doctors propose hypotheses and use logic to explain these natural phenomena. And isn’t a doctor’s diagnosis logically bound together? It had better be! So by this definition medical doctors seem to meet all of Wikipedia’s criteria of a scientist.

Note that neither our definition nor Wikipedia’s includes achievement; there are good doctors and there are bad doctors, just as surely as there are good and bad car mechanics. Which raised the question, are the latter scientists as well? Let’s apply Wikipedia’s definition again. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that a mysterious problem with your car classifies as a natural phenomena. A (good) mechanic uses hypotheses and logic to propose an explanation for the phenomena and, in the end, hopefully, will logically bind all this data together to explain what’s wrong with your car. So it seems like without taking any unreasonable liberties with the language, auto mechanics are indeed scientists.

If we invoke our additional requirement of the definition, i.e. that the explanation be new, it would be a stretch to call mechanics scientists, because surely it’s reasonable to assume that the phenomena was exhibited by some other car and explained the same way by some other car mechanic. But then the same holds true for medical doctors, and incidentally scads of other putative research scientists who make incrementally new discoveries at the bench, and publish them, but which don’t necessarily entail any new explanation of the phenomena.

Identifying a phenomena and explaining its underlying cause are two different things.

But rather than recall the attribution of "scientist" from every medical doctor and scientific researcher in academia, I propose instead we consider car mechanics as scientists.