Yes. I have a degree in science and am now back in school in Nursing, which is an evidence-based profession. I have maintained a lifelong interest in all facets of science. Probably chemistry interests me the least but I am very interested in all the other branches of science, whether it is life sciences, ecology, or astrophysics and astronomy.

Umm... yes. I am still doing microbiology/immunology professionally. It took getting a DVM and PhD, but has been well worth it.

Technically, yes I have a BS in Computer Science. But I never think of it as such.

I'd say "yes." My credentials are probably not as impressive as other people, but I have a biology degree and I've spent a few years working in a microbiology lab. What I do is mostly routine, but I still run tests and get to do a little minor experimentation now and then

Yes: PhD in physics but at 74 I've forgotten most of it now.

Nope. Just an engineer.

Although I teach science and practice the scientific method, I do not consider myself a scientist.

Scientist is a classification I often present as a profession worthy of admiration as these are people who dedicate their lives to finding answers to questions that, if left unanswered, may dictate the demise of civilization.

Nope; that word usually carries with it the sense that you work in one if the scientific fields

I'm a skeptic that uses the findings of the scientific community to steer my acceptance of propositions and helps guide my beliefs

Yes. In attitude, not profession.

Nope. I respect scientists, but I'm not educated enough to be one.

I watched Frankenstein then tried to bring to life a dead bird by using a stripped extension cord. Does that count?
I'm just an amateur astronomer.

Sometimes, when I'm cooking.

My degree is in computer science

Yes, I'm a Christian Scientist

Just kidding

I consider that everyone is born with the innate abilities to be a scientist AND that we could improve all science and the uptake of science by actually calling everyone a scientists. Each person,I admit has had varying degrees of practice and confidence. Additionally everyone has had their science abilities suppressed from birth whilst we each reinvent and free our ourselves so that we practice real science. Science is not a body of knowledge, nor a group of people in white coats but a series of processes linked in a cyclical fashion. Once you have chosen one of these processes (e.g.ask a question) then the rest of the processes naturally follow on if the mind is free to practice what it was born with. Why do we always talk about the hard and intricate knowledge derived from science instead of giving each person the chance to follow the logic and methods of science to prove things for themselves.?

I consider myself a social scientist, which according to the National Science Foundation is a subset of science, so yes. I have a PhD in sociology, an MA in comparative culture, and a BA in anthropology.

I have degrees in Mathematics and Computer Science

So so

Yes

Nope, no degrees.

Probably not.
More an engineer.

I prefer the proper word, scientician.

You need to specify first what is your definition of a scientist...... You can establish hypothesis on how long can I go without doing anything. Then accurately start a time measuring device. When tired of doing anything then stop the clock, compare results againts the prediction to establish conclusions. I could do this forever by keeping record of environment conditions and lot of things that may impact the learning process called experiment. If I am methodical and pay attention to every detail, does that make me a scientist? If you say no then we need to go back to my initial question....

No, and additionally my field is mathematics, which is not a science and I think that the word "science" is defined to exclude everything that doesn't involve the "TEM" in the word STEM. A lot of people conflate things that are not remotely like science with science, and it's not correct.

The sciences are basically your Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, and such from the hard and soft sciences. All of those fields are about researching scientific texts, the scientific method, applied mathematics, coding, engineering, computer crafts, etc. and one can see why they're so distinct.

Applied sciences like engineering don't count. IT does not count. Mathematics does not count (math is a knowledge structure, involves mathematical formulation, and such.).

If I have any issue with science, it is that there is a lot of hostility towards non-epistemical ways of viewing things, because scientists tend not to grasp language outside of a traditional, unproven, political context, without even knowing it, and people who publish the science don't give sources sometimes. Science also often gets used to make studies that support political agendas that don't have any proof. I also find the notion of falsifiability to not be progressive towards the advancement of scientific knowledge-what is the worth of a scientific claim, that many will use as a point of reference in life, when it can be proven wrong? It makes no sense at all to have this kind of institutional mechanism.

For example, scientific explanations of purpose are always some later event in when they describe some natural scenario, but this doesn't actually respond to the question at hand with citations or anything like that.

So for a specific case, if we have a scenario where we want to know why an ant does something, we're supposed to believe that the ant had some greater goal, but there is no formal proof of this, so a person has to just listen to these scientific claims, without sources.

Yes, in that I test hypotheses by observation. But no, not in a 't' testing article releasing way.

I’m a retiree.