To be a scientist is not enough to use the scientific method in isolation. Because modern science is much bigger than anyone can understand as an individual, it is an imperative requirement that you also articulate your findings to the scientific community as a way to prove/disprove your personal conclusions. In other words, the requirement for proper use of the scientific method in a modern society can only been accomplished through the scientific community. Now, you could in theory do this without a PhD, but your chances are minimal of even being able to start the discussion, so if you're really willing to do science the first meta-step is to prove yourself going through a PhD program.

Using the scientific method in isolation is enough to be a scientist. If I:

1. form a falsifiable hypothesis based on observation 2. come up with (reproducible) experiments in an attempt to confirm and (more importantly) falsify my hypothesis 3. accurately measure and analyze my experimental results 4. modify or throw out hypotheses where necessary 5. rinse repeat

I am a scientist. If I then make prescriptive statements / claims to people based on this science, it is of course imperative that I share my scientific methodology with whoever I am making these claims to. But I can do science on a desert island all alone.

  but your chances are minimal of even being able to start the discussion,

Could you expand on this a bit? I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here. Furthermore, getting a PhD does not "prove" you can do proper science, even in scientific disciplines, as has been made clear by the reproducibility crisis in academia.

What you're saying is correct in theory, but in practice this process happens through the scientific debate, which is done (if we like it or not) through scientific publications and conferences. If you don't have a PhD you'll have a lot of trouble to participate on these scientific forums, because the community requires a minimum of proof that you're a serious researcher. This minimum requirement is nowadays a PhD in the area.

I am the professor who translated the article from Swedish. I agree that anyone can be a scientist. But, as you Erikson neither has qualifications, nor does he show understanding and nor does he use the scientific method. So very poor all round.

Oh, I agree. Erikson does not appear to be a scientist at all. But I think the criticism should be along the lines of "he was not using the scientific method or citing sources which used such in the writing of this book", not personal attacks of "he doesn't have a degree in behavioral science".

To illustrate my point, this article[0] paints a very dim view of the science used in the book "Why We Sleep". The author of the book is a professor of neuroscience and psychology at UC Berkeley. Being in academia (even a professor at a prestigious school!) doesn't mean the book he wrote is de facto "scientific".

[0] https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-what-do-you-d...

At issue is whether the translated author's qualifications are any better. A professorship in psychology doesn't seem to take much understanding.

Does he really think depression is as delusory as redness?

Part of the scientific method is to perform studies. The studies must be self-contained, based on facts, traceable and get published. In many disciplines because of complexity this requires people to include data into the argument. (Psychology is one of these disciplines) Bonus points for peer-review, Science is a team discipline after all, even if done outside of Academia.

According to the article almost none of the points hold true:

- "no scientific articles have been published about the test."

Apparently the book did not contain measurements of data or data based on that, so it wasn't written according to the scientific method. Not even close...

I have no problem with the idea that Thomas Erikson is not himself a scientist, I stated that fairly clearly in my original comment ("Thomas Erikson does not seem to qualify"). I have no problem with the author thinking Thomas Erikson should not be calling himself a behavioral scientist. It is also clear to me as it is to you that the scientific method was not employed in the writing of this book. My issue is with statements like:

> Despite a lack of any qualification, Erikson describes himself as a behavioural scientist.

and

> despite the fact that from a legal point of view in Sweden, it is possible to call yourself a ‘behavioural scientist’ without any formal qualifications

Again, it seems clear to me that the author believes that formal qualifications make you more of a scientist. This is simply untrue. Doing good science requires no qualifications, only good method. In fact, there are so many conflicts of interest in modern academia with regards to performing honest science (and resulting scandals) that something coming out of a university should probably be looked at with a more skeptical eye than science which does not.

I realize now that my last sentence in my original comment may have been confusing, but I was not trying to assert that this book in particular is scientific - merely that it is possible to write a scientific book without a formal higher education background.

The question is how such a person is able to do research. If you weren't independently wealthy, how would you go about getting funding for a study of human subjects and have it covered by the oversight that it should entail, if you didn't already receive training to a satisfactory degree in an institution of higher learning? Not saying it's impossible, but it would be remarkable on its own.

Of course, once you have already become a popular writer, people start to assume that you are the real deal, without looking into it in detail. So you can fake it 'till you make it. But you'd have to fake it.

Having a masters degree in X is a "formal qualification" but does not give you any more ability to perform more research after doing that degree than anyone else, in the terms (money) you are talking about.

Their poodle appears to have the same amount of inclination to use the scientific method, and the same level of experience in doing so.

One claiming to be a behavioural scientist should be able to demoinstrate a history of such, even if it's an unconventional history. There is none here.