August 5, 2025 • 14 mins
In this episode of Math! Science! History!, Gabrielle explores the unexpected origin story of the word scientist. It all started with Mary Somerville’s 1834 book On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, which sparked a humorous yet historic review by William Whewell. From ridicule to resistance, the term evolved amid fierce linguistic debate, public mockery, and eventual global adoption. Discover how one word came to define a profession, and why that battle still matters today.
Key topics:
- The origin of the word "scientist," and why it was initially mocked by 19th-century intellectuals.
- How Mary Somerville’s work unified the physical sciences and inspired a linguistic revolution.
- Why scientists still face resistance, and why naming, truth, and peer-reviewed research matter more than ever.
Primary Resources & Recommended Reading:
Ross, Sydney. “Scientist: The Story of a Word.” Annals of Science, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1964.
Mary Somerville, On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences (1834). On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences by Mary Somerville | Project Gutenberg
William Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840)
🔗 Explore more on our website: mathsciencehistory.com
📚 To buy my book Hypatia: The Sum of Her Life on Amazon, visit https://a.co/d/g3OuP9h
🌍 Let’s Connect!
Website: mathsciencehistory.com
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mathsciencehistory.bsky.social
Instagram: .css-j9qmi7{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:1rem;margin-top:2.8rem;width:100%;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:start;justify-content:start;padding-left:5rem;}@media only screen and (max-width: 599px){.css-j9qmi7{padding-left:0;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;}}.css-j9qmi7 svg{fill:#27292D;}.css-j9qmi7 .eagfbvw0{-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;color:#27292D;}Mark as PlayedTranscript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Math Science History. I'm Gabrielle Birchak, your host, and today, as we continue
(00:05):
with our summer series of reposts and stories about scientists on vacation, I am going to repost
one of my favorites. This one is about the word scientist, which was designated in honor of a
woman. By the time you're done with today's episode, you're going to know so much more
about Mary Somerville, the word scientist, as well as the origin and pushback over the word
(00:30):
physicist. The history of math is our intellectual foundation to understanding science.
Science, beautiful, awesome, wonderful science. It's the creative foundation to our ineffable
future. Hi, I'm Gabrielle Birchak, and this is my podcast, Math Science History.
(01:14):
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
(01:37):
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
(02:02):
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
(02:25):
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
(02:50):
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
(03:16):
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.
(03:37):
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
(03:57):
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,
(04:18):
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
(04:44):
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
(05:04):
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
(05:30):
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,
(05:52):
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
(06:16):
men of science. Even in 1894, J. T. Carrington, the editor of the magazine Science Gossip,
wrote, quote, why not speak of nomenclatures as namists or semstrists as suists or conchologists
as shellists? All these words may come into use among, quote, progressivists, but are equally
(06:39):
abominable with scientists, unquote. 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. We'll be right back after a quick word from my
(06:59):
advertisers. 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
(07:22):
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
(07:48):
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
(08:14):
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
(08:36):
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
(09:00):
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
(09:20):
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.
(09:44):
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
(10:09):
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
(10:33):
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,
(10:59):
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
(11:21):
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
(11:42):
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
(12:03):
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
(12:24):
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 Youwell, 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
(12:45):
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,
(13:10):
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. So, to all the
(13:32):
scientists out there listening to this, I just want to say thank you for all that you do.
I'm Gabrielle Birchak. This podcast has been brought to you by caffeine. Delicious, wonderful,
(13:57):
nectar of the gods caffeine. Coffee, tea, coffee candy, you name it. I love it. Thank you for
listening to Math Science History. If you like what you are listening to, please remember to
subscribe and leave a review. I would really appreciate that. If you are interested in reading
more about the history of math and science, please come visit me at mathsciencehistory.com.
(14:23):
And while you are there, if you like what you're listening to,
please feel free to click on that coffee button and buy me a cup of coffee. Until next week, carpe diem.
Welcome to Math Science History. I'm Gabrielle Birchak, your host, and today, as we continue
(00:05):
with our summer series of reposts and stories about scientists on vacation, I am going to repost
one of my favorites. This one is about the word scientist, which was designated in honor of a
woman. By the time you're done with today's episode, you're going to know so much more
about Mary Somerville, the word scientist, as well as the origin and pushback over the word
(00:30):
physicist. The history of math is our intellectual foundation to understanding science.
Science, beautiful, awesome, wonderful science. It's the creative foundation to our ineffable
future. Hi, I'm Gabrielle Birchak, and this is my podcast, Math Science History.
(01:14):
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
(01:37):
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
(02:02):
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
(02:25):
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
(02:50):
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
(03:16):
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.
(03:37):
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
(03:57):
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,
(04:18):
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
(04:44):
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
(05:04):
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
(05:30):
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,
(05:52):
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
(06:16):
men of science. Even in 1894, J. T. Carrington, the editor of the magazine Science Gossip,
wrote, quote, why not speak of nomenclatures as namists or semstrists as suists or conchologists
as shellists? All these words may come into use among, quote, progressivists, but are equally
(06:39):
abominable with scientists, unquote. 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. We'll be right back after a quick word from my
(06:59):
advertisers. 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
(07:22):
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
(07:48):
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
(08:14):
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
(08:36):
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
(09:00):
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
(09:20):
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.
(09:44):
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
(10:09):
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
(10:33):
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,
(10:59):
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
(11:21):
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
(11:42):
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
(12:03):
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
(12:24):
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 Youwell, 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
(12:45):
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,
(13:10):
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. So, to all the
(13:32):
scientists out there listening to this, I just want to say thank you for all that you do.
I'm Gabrielle Birchak. This podcast has been brought to you by caffeine. Delicious, wonderful,
(13:57):
nectar of the gods caffeine. Coffee, tea, coffee candy, you name it. I love it. Thank you for
listening to Math Science History. If you like what you are listening to, please remember to
subscribe and leave a review. I would really appreciate that. If you are interested in reading
more about the history of math and science, please come visit me at mathsciencehistory.com.
(14:23):
And while you are there, if you like what you're listening to,
please feel free to click on that coffee button and buy me a cup of coffee. Until next week, carpe diem.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!