>>12147100To be called a scientist, nessecary condition is to have published papers. Additionally, there should be a serious intellectual contribution original research in that paper, if I can already tell by reading the paper that the so-called author only scribbled their name on it, it obviously doesn't count. So, which of these 3 gentlemen have published > 0 papers? I'm using google scholar, because if there's a paper out there, it usually knows about it. I do have a few queries to account for stage names and GS does tend to pick up all sorts of random noise, so I'll have to filter stuff.
>Bill Nye>author:bill author:nye>author:william author:nyeThere's a 2 books where he only wrote the foreword. He wrote a book arguing against creationists, that's not original research. More interesting is his authorship on a few papers by Betts et al. This seems to be mostly due to Nye's position as CEO of "the planetary society", which sponsors the research. I think we can be fairly sure he made no intellectual contribution there.
Then there's
>Nye, Bill. "First order nonlinear device bypass in circuit simulation." 1988 IEEE International Conference on Computer-Aided Design. IEEE Computer Society, 1988.This, however, is written by a guy from Berkley who is better known as "William Nye".
There are some more books, magazines, and papers by the planetary society, but nothing that indicates Bill Nye published original research. So, given that Nye seem to fail this rather low bar, I think we can be fairly certain that he isn't a scientist.
>Hans Dolph Lundgren>author:dolph author:lundgren>author:hans author:lundgrenHuh, didn't know Google scholar indexed movie
scripts.In any case, this PhD-dropout didn't seem to have done much in his few years at MIT, and while it seems he did quite well at school, I wouldn't call him a scientist. Apparently there's also a Hans Lundgren, MD, but clearly not our guy.
