How “Scientist” Became a Word
In 1834, the Scottish science writer and polymath, Mary Somerville, published her renowned work on the connection of the physical sciences.
It was an absolutely tremendous book that showed how all of the physical sciences connect and how all of the work that chemists, philosophers, mathematicians, and naturalists do can be associated with a role that honorably defines who they are. The book itself is not the subject of this podcast. Instead, it’s what the book inspired.
In March 1834, an anonymous critic wrote a review about Somerville’s work. The review was written with an air of humor, but ultimately, it was a really serious review that brought about a really important discussion that changed the landscape of science. This anonymous reviewer wrote, quote, the tendency of the sciences has long been an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment, unquote.
In other words, the reviewer was pointing out that the sciences has been growing and that there were more and more people involved in different factions of the sciences. The reviewer conveyed that with all of these individuals involved in different forms of science, that, quote, there was no general term by which these gentlemen could describe themselves with reference to their pursuits. And by analogy with artist, they might form scientist.
And there could be no scruple in making free with this termination when we have such words as scientist, economist, and atheist, unquote. In other words, this anonymous reviewer was proposing that maybe we should start labeling all of these individuals involved in different forms of science as scientists. He proposed using the word philosophers, but he felt that would be too wide and too lofty a term.
He then proposed that maybe we use the word savant, but then he said it wouldn’t quite work because the word was French, and it alluded to pretensions. So, because this particular piece was written with an air of humor, it wasn’t taken seriously. And so, six years later, this anonymous reviewer outed himself in his work called The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences.
The author was William Hewell. The last name is spelled W‑H-E-W-E-L‑L, but it’s pronounced Hewell. In his work, he proposed the word scientist.
He wrote that something must be added to the word science to show that people who work in different forms of science are indeed a scientist. Using the word physics as a foundation to employ the word scientist, he wrote, quote, Hence, we may make such words when they are wanted. As we cannot use physician for a cultivator of physics, I have called him a physicist.
We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a scientist. Thus, as we might say that as an artist is a musician, painter, or poet, a scientist is a mathematician, physicist, or naturalist, unquote.
And so, the term scientist, along with the term physicist, took hold. Well, many people were offended, including Michael Faraday, the brilliant scientist who worked with electromagnetism and electrochemistry. He could not stand the word physicist, and he wrote, quote, Physicist is both to my mouth and ears so awkward that I think I shall never be able to use it.
The equivalent of three separate eyes in one word is too much, unquote. And so, even Michael Faraday described himself as an experimental philosopher until the end of his career. The editor of Blackwood magazine wrote that the word physicist is, quote, for sibilant consonants that fizz like squib, unquote.
Lord Kelvin of the infamous base unit of temperature, Kelvin, suggested that they use the word naturalist. Some even proposed that they use the word philosopher. Again, it didn’t go over because philosopher had narrowed in its field so much that it excluded natural philosophy.
And those who were scientists who defined themselves as natural philosophers had to say that they were either experimental philosophers or natural philosophers. So, philosopher wouldn’t have worked because they were looking for one complete term to identify a scientist. Well, as the discussion continued to go back and forth about whether to take on the term scientist or not, by the time the term reached America, they were all like, sure, hey, why not? It’s a fantastic term.
Let’s use it. So, meanwhile, as the debate continued in Britain, America was moving on with the term scientist. Regardless, in Britain, they dug in their heels.
They apprehensively used the term scientist as an informal expression. However, they formally continued to refer to scientists as men of science. Even in 1894, J. T. Carrington, the editor of the magazine Science Gossip, wrote, “Why not speak of nomenclatures as ‘nameists’, or a sempstress as a ‘sewist’, or a conchologist as a shellist. All these words may come into use among “Progressivists” but are equally abominable with scientists.”
Believe it or not, he was mad. Those are mad words. Carrington was so upset with this word scientist that he asked for an authoritative declaration confirming that the word scientist be banned.
Well, the responses that he got back were a mixed bag. Alfred R. Wallace, a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, biologist, and illustrator who worked jointly with Charles Darwin, wrote back to Carrington of Science Gossip, saying, quote, I thought the very useful American term scientist was now adopted, and I see Dr. Armstrong used it at the Chemical Society yesterday.
As we have biologist, zoologist, geologist, botanist, chemist, physicist, physiologist, and specialist, why should we not use scientist? It seems to me that it has, as the Americans say, come to stay, and it is too late in the day to object to it, unquote. Then there was Thomas H. Huxley, who was an English biologist and anthropologist. He hated the word.
He wrote, quote, Sir, to anyone who respects the English language, I think scientist must be about as pleasing as the word electrocution. I sincerely trust you will not allow the pages of Science Gossip to be defiled by it, unquote. What gets me is that he’s trying to defend a magazine called Science Gossip, which in today’s time would probably be a website called the Science Gossip Cop.
Not very credible. Even though the term scientist was, quote, here to stay, even up until 1914, the Oxford English Dictionary referred to these natural philosophers as men of science. But there was one American philologist, Fitz Edward Hall, who took offense with those who were offended, and he disputed these men with this response.
By nobody who is capable of judging can it be gainsaid, and it behooves a wise patriot acknowledge and to lament that the phraseology of nearly all our recent popular authors is tarnished with vulgarisms, imported and indigenous, at which a cultivated taste cannot but revolt. Nor is this the soul and couth trait that sullies the written style of the great body of our fellow countrymen. Conspicuous with them, almost in like degree, our slovenliness, want of lucidity, breach of established idiom, faulty grammar, and needless Americanisms, general or sectional, of these offenses against the aesthetics of literary composition, they are seen moreover to show themselves year by year increasingly regardless.
I had to read this for one reason only, because it sounds like Kelsey Grammer in an episode of Frasier spewing his anger in a room full of people who have absolutely no idea what the hell he is saying. It’s hysterical. But in his defense, in layman’s terms, Hall prophesied that the word scientist would stick.
Yeah, that’s what he said, basically. He, along with others, felt that the objections were too late. Thus, the final defense was that since the term scientist was, quote, an American importation, unquote, why doesn’t the rest of the scientific community use it as well? If you are interested in reading more about Huell’s proposal and the defenses and support that ensued, I’m going to post a few resources on my website at mathsciencehistory.com, including my primary reference in this podcast, which is Scientist, the Story of a Word, by Dr. Sidney Ross, which was published in the June 1964 Journal of the Annals of Science.
It’s really a wonderful article to read, and it’s full of so much detail over this one word, scientist. Thus, scientist became the word for our seekers of truth. A true scientist uses a method that includes a question, research, hypothesis, experiment, data, results, and conclusions, and then communication that is evaluated by peers.
A good scientist, or any good researcher, for that matter, does not go into the research looking for the answer that they believe to be true. They go into the research with the viable question and are open to the outcome of the answer. Scientists don’t have an emotional attachment to the answer.
They simply explain the facts, and these facts are imperative to science, development, and humankind. Being a scientist is truly a commendable job. It is a position that serves to move society forward.
Scientists are a force for good, and it’s unfortunate that through the millennia, many scientists, in their efforts to speak the truth, have been oppressed and suppressed. When people don’t understand the complexities of science, they either bury their heads in ignorance or they tend to label it as false information. Ignorance continually trumps our society because people feel as though if it’s too complex and you can’t understand it, then it must not be true.
We see this with climate change. We see this with the asinine belief that our planet is flat, and even worse, we see it with coronavirus. When the data is released to the public, depending on the government, the numbers are obfuscated, the research is mocked or hidden, and scientists are publicly tarnished.
As a result, scientists are diminished, disrespected, silenced, or worse yet, bought out. This is dangerous. We live in a society that relies on hunches, opinions, and political optics over and above the value of science and research.
We live in a society that diminishes the value of a scientist. To be a scientist is an honor. William Whewell, inspired by Mary Somerville, was onto something.
He understood the importance of combining all of these skill sets under one term so that we could honor all of these individuals who work so hard for our world health, our evolution, and our scientific development. Scientists are our voice of reason. As humans struggling to save a planet and fight against a virus that doesn’t care how we vote, what color we are, or how much money we have, we are standing on the edge of a precipice that is about to collapse, and that collapse is up to us.
Research, scientific growth, advancements, and future discoveries will never be attainable without our valued scientists. If we heed the word of our scientists, their research will be our saving grace. It will help us reach outer planets, it will help us save our own planet, and it will help us save our own lives.