Why does outside magazine have an article on their site suggesting Tim Samaras was not a scientist?

[Brian OConnell]

I'm not sure how to quote stuff on here, so quotes from the article I am making italic, with bold to emphasize the parts I am most trying to point out

I was reading about the 5-31-13 event and stumbled upon this article When the Luck Ran Out in El Reno

For those unfamiliar with it Outside is a good magazine about outdoor activities, with articles on such topics as kayaking, skiing, heatstroke prevention, wilderness survival, extreme true survival stories, ect, so I thought their article on El Reno would be good, but they seem a bit out of their depth writing about chasing, making strange claims like saying that most chasers claim to be scientists to justify chasing in metropolitan areas, and promoting the (very common) myth of El Reno being the widest tornado recorded

A significant topic within the article is controversy around who counts as a scientist for example saying: "Samaras, said Timmer, was “doing it for the science.” This is a phrase you'll hear many stormchasers use as a declaration of purpose, one as noteworthy for the knee-jerk defensiveness it reveals as for the elements of truth it contains."

But the part that I found particularly odd was this:

" IF NATURE HATES a vacuum, it loves a fight. Everybody realizes that they can't all be “doing science,” though few will actually cop to it. But Timmer and several other ego chasers, as they get labeled, make a good lightning rod. When I asked Wurman whether he considers Timmer a lightweight, his reply was blunt: “He wouldn't be considered an any-weight in tornado science. I mean, really, he's not a tornado scientist.”

In the hierarchy of stormchasers, serious scientists with grant funding form the in-crowd. These are Ph.D.'s like Wurman, his research partner, Karen Kosiba, 36, and University of Oklahoma professor Howard Bluestein, 65, all participants in the well-funded Vortex studies on tornado-genesis. Even Samaras, whose grants came from National Geographic instead of the National Science Foundation, apparently wasn't in their league. “He was a recreational chaser. He was also an engineer,” explains Wurman. “Putting a camera in a hard box and putting it in front of a tornado is not a super original idea, but Tim was able to execute that kind of thing much better than most chasers.” "

This strikes me as bizarre, since not only did Samaras have scientific instruments in the "hard box", (even the cameras were being used for scientific analysis) but Wurman had previously coauthored a paper with Samaras, a paper based in part on scientific data gathered by Samaras's probes https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/82352.pdf, so Wurman had to know that samaras was a scientist

I really don't understand why Wurman would have said this, why Outside would have misquoted him this badly if he didn't, why outside did not get anyone to vouch for Samaras other than another person Wurman was attacking, and why something this inaccurate is still up in a legit publication without a correction

Plese be civil, I'm not posting this to bash anyone (Ok that's not true, I'm bashing outside magazine a bit), but out of curiosity and confusion as to why this misinformation is out there. I'm leaving open the possibility that Wurman was misquoted, making clear that Samaras was doing science, and I should clarify that Timmer is as well https://osf.io/96xqz/, but I can understand Wurman not realizing that since Timmer had not yet published anything at the time the article was written and I am not aware of any collaboration between Wurman and Timmer, whereas Wurman had to know Samaras was a scientist since they coauthored a paper

 

[Mike Smith]

"Ego chasers"?!! That is deplorable!

 

[Warren Faidley]

Most "titles" now days have been diluted into nothingness. For example, once upon a time, a "Journalist" was someone who actually worked for the media and had a degree. Now days, anyone who publishes a picture on social media is a "journalist." Timmer has a PhD and has conducted "science" projects, therefore he is a "scientist," although I still think he is more of a social media guru. Samaras was also conducting research so he was also a "scientist." I suppose you could divide scientists into those working for an institution and those working for themselves. Maybe that is the defining point for some.

 

[Michael Towers]

Definition of a scientist from Science Council:

“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.”

By this definition you can argue Samaras was a scientist, however since he did not have a degree in one of the sciences, let alone any type of degree at all, some may argue he was not a scientist. Perhaps that’s why Wurman didn’t refer to him as a scientist, to a degreed scientist, especially one with an advanced degree and a substantial contribution to science, academic credentials may define the matter.

Timmer on the other hand has a Ph. D. in Meteorology and while Samaras claims he’s not a “tornado scientist” he probably still considers him a scientist by merit of his degree and I think all degreed scientists on this forum likely agree. In regards to Samaras however those opinions may vary.

 

[Brian OConnell]

Definition of a scientist from Science Council:

“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.”

By this definition you can argue Samaras was a scientist, however since he did not have a degree in one of the sciences, let alone any type of degree at all, some may argue he was not a scientist. Perhaps that’s why Wurman didn’t refer to him as a scientist, to a degreed scientist, especially one with an advanced degree and a substantial contribution to science, academic credentials may define the matter.

It seems odd to me that a degree would determine whether someone is a scientist. Suppose someone gets a meteorology degree and then gets a job as a trucker, and never does anything involving science after they graduate, it would seem hard to call this person a scientist.

Whereas someone who builds scientific instruments that they then use to gather data, analyze that data and publish that analysis in the scientific literature seems like a scientist by definition, all a degree means is that a school has vouched for your knowledge level, I don't see how that is relevant to definition of scientist if you are publishing in peer reviewed journals

And regardless of the definition of scientist, Wurman's statement as quoted by Outside was wrong because he said that samaras was just putting a camera in front of a tornado, omitting the fact that the probe contained scientific instruments

Timmer on the other hand has a Ph. D. in Meteorology and while Samaras claims he’s not a “tornado scientist” he probably still considers him a scientist by merit of his degree and I think all degreed scientists on this forum likely agree. In regards to Samaras however those opinions may vary.

It was Wurman who claimed (if the article is to be believed) that Samaras and Timmer were not scientists, Samaras's opinion of Timmer was never asked as Samaras was dead at the time the article was written

 

[Brian OConnell]

Most "titles" now days have been diluted into nothingness. For example, once upon a time, a "Journalist" was someone who actually worked for the media and had a degree. Now days, anyone who publishes a picture on social media is a "journalist." Timmer has a PhD and has conducted "science" projects, therefore he is a "scientist," although I still think he is more of a social media guru. Samaras was also conducting research so he was also a "scientist." I suppose you could divide scientists into those working for an institution and those working for themselves. Maybe that is the defining point for some.

Simply publishing a picture on social media is not doing journalism, so it does not make you a journalist, but Samaras and Timmer were both conducting and publishing scientific research, so I don't see why they would not count as scientists? A self employed repairman and a repairman who works for a company are both repairmen, because they do repairs for a living, why would scientists be different?

Also, wasn't Samaras the founder and leader of the research organization TWISTEX? I did not think he worked alone

 

[Michael Towers]

It seems odd to me that a degree would determine whether someone is a scientist.

Nothing odd about it, if you have a degree in science and work in your field of study most people would likely consider you to be a scientist. If you have no degree but “practice” science some may not consider you to be a scientist.

Suppose someone gets a meteorology degree and then gets a job as a trucker, and never does anything involving science after they graduate, it would seem hard to call this person a scientist.

Maybe but that’s your opinion, subjective and no different than whether to call a person without a degree a scientist.

 

[Brian OConnell]

Nothing odd about it, if you have a degree in science and work in your field of study most people would likely consider you to be a scientist.

And so would l, what I was saying is that it is the work your do rather than the degree that makes you a scientist

Maybe but that’s your opinion, subjective and no different than whether to call a person without a degree a scientist.

You are probably right that deciding who counts as a scientist will always contain an element of opinion, though I've always believed that most words have an objectively correct meaning, and the merriam webster dictionary defines a scientist as "a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator", while the oxford learners dictionary says "a person who studies one or more of the natural sciences (= for example, physics, chemistry or biology)" and the UK Science Council says "someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge." All of these definitions are based on knowledge or actions, and not any formal qualifications

I feel like I'm getting on a bit of a tangent here, I don't think agreeing on what to call someone who is conducting scientific research without a degree really matters as long as everyone knows how everyone else means the words they use, the real reason for my post was to question why Outside published an article suggesting Samaras was not conducting research, as the quote in the article:
“He was a recreational chaser. He was also an engineer,” explains Wurman. “Putting a camera in a hard box and putting it in front of a tornado is not a super original idea, but Tim was able to execute that kind of thing much better than most chasers.” " suggests that he was not gathering or publishing scientific data

 

[JamesCaruso]

In reading the original post here, I was reminded of some thoughts I had while reading “The Man Who Caught the Storm,” a biography of Samaras written by Brantley Hargrove. I recommend the book, if you want to learn more about Samaras, the 5/31/13 El Reno event, and enjoy reading generally about storm chasing, which I assume you do… Anyway, relevant to the original post, below is an excerpt from my review of the book that I posted on Amazon:

“Although I have been a chaser for a long time, and interested in severe weather for an even longer period, I did not know much about Tim Samaras’s life. Believe it or not, for several reasons I never watched more than an episode or two of “Storm Chasers.” I was generally aware of Tim’s work from other sources, but always had a vague (and, in retrospect, erroneous) impression that he was somewhat on the fringe of “real” science. From the book, I now understand where this impression came from; in some ways it was based on reality (i.e., Tim not having the academic pedigree and facing his own challenges with being accepted by the scientific community; forming his own TWISTEX group rather than participating in Project VORTEX), but I also understand more about why he was “on his own” (I appreciated the background on Tim’s conflicts with Josh Wurman and how TWISTEX came to exist outside of VORTEX) and simultaneously gained a greater appreciation for Tim’s very real and significant scientific contributions.”

 

[Randy Jennings]

This whole thread/article reminds my of Big Bang Theory where Sheldon always looks down on Howard because he is an engineer and not a scientist. Let me be clear up front - I am a firm believer that Tim Samaras was a scientist. I will say that he certainly didn't fit the stereotypical view of a scientist (and I'm fine with that). Per Wikipedia, Tim didn't have a college degree. Immediately out of high school and without a resume he was hired as a walk-in at the University of Denver Research Institute. He went on to work as an engineer for Applied Research (as a funny side note folks with PEs after their name holding a state engineering license are saying he isn't an engineer either and would tell you it would be illegal for him to have claimed to be an engineer).

But let's look at his work. He was awarded 18 grants from National Geographic Society. According to Wikipedia he authored or coauthored around one dozen scientific papers (I found 8 in the first search I did). He also wrote a co-wrote a book, numerous magazine articles, and was a frequent contributor to StromTrack at one point. He captured the largest drop in atmospheric pressure ever recorded when a tornado struck one of several probes placed near Manchester, SD on June 24, 2003.The measurement is also the lowest pressure, 850 hectopascals (25.10 inHg), ever recorded at Earth's surface when adjusted for elevation.

It should be noted that just like in chasing their are egos in research too. Person A has more published works than Person B, Person C has articles that have appeared in better quality journals than Person D, etc. Principal Investigators often compete for the same grant funds as others.