Is amateur astronomy, well, amateurish?

[DHEB]

I have just come across this interesting (and freely accessible) article: Is amateur astronomy, well, amateurish?  by Sue Bowler, published in Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 50, Issue 2.

Interesting viewpoints and conclusions, the most important: amateur is to be interpreted as non-professional (as opposed to low-quality), but with the right equipment and training, we can contribute valuable data and insights.

* Note added: amateur does indeed mean "lover", one who does it for the love of the subject. What I wrote above does not invalidate this definition.

 

[bingevader]

I'll take the "unpaid and for pleasure and enjoyment" definition of amateur and yep, I'm definitely an amateur.

But I can't actually see anything wrong with that.

Personally, I've no desire to "fit in" with the "professionals".

I see awe inspiring sights from the bottom of my garden with comparatively inexpensive equipment, that'll do me, thanks.

[Tzitzis]

We sure as hell can! I think that mostly photographers athough I don' underestimate visual. Just yesterday or the day before I saw a post about an image in which a star had clearly moved a distance. I didn't read it all though, don't know where it cocnluded...

[xtreemchaos]

i allways thought amateur ment " to love" or "for the love of" taken from latin. charl.

[DHEB]

2 minutes ago, xtreemchaos said:

i allways thought amateur ment " to love" or "for the love of" taken from latin. charl.

Yes, this is the meaning of amateur. a "lover". This is what we mostly are!

[DHEB]

15 minutes ago, bingevader said:

I'll take the "unpaid and for pleasure and enjoyment" definition of amateur and yep, I'm definitely an amateur.

But I can't actually see anything wrong with that.

Personally, I've no desire to "fit in" with the "professionals".

I see awe inspiring sights from the bottom of my garden with comparatively inexpensive equipment, that'll do me, thanks.

Completely agree. We do not have to sweat, elbow and fight for grants and teaching positions ;-) We just stargaze for the love of it!

[Merlin66]

Many "amateurs" over the years have made significant contributions to science.

Many of the members of the Astronomical Spectroscopy forums make regular contributions to ProAm stellar research and are acknowledged in the final written papers.

With dedication and rigorous discipline great results can be achieved.

(An example: How many AP imagers actually analyse their images to determine differences - nova, long period variables, asteroids or faint comets???)

 

[Scott]

5 minutes ago, xtreemchaos said:

i allways thought amateur ment " to love" or "for the love of" taken from latin. charl.

Quite correct. It has been contorted over the years to indicate one who does it without payment but I prefer to think I do it for the love of it

18 minutes ago, bingevader said:

I'll take the "unpaid and for pleasure and enjoyment" definition of amateur and yep, I'm definitely an amateur.

But I can't actually see anything wrong with that.

Personally, I've no desire to "fit in" with the "professionals".

I see awe inspiring sights from the bottom of my garden with comparatively inexpensive equipment, that'll do me, thanks.

Do professionals look through an eyepiece or even own personal scopes?  . There are a few that do but the majority look at screens all day surely

[Pete Presland]

An interesting article. I am definitely an amateur, as are most of us on here. I would say most of the professionals started as amateur's as well and had the fortune/misfortune, depending on your point of view to earn a living pursuing their interest. 

I guess Brian cox, Maggie aderin pocock among others are also still amateurs, because when they talk on their subjects they clearly still love them! Its one of the things that unites nearly all of us from around the world, once discovered, the love for the heavens stays with you for life!

[Astrobits]

Not only spectroscopy.

The AAVSO ( mostly "amateurs" I guess ) are frequently asked to monitor ( both visually and via CCD/DSLR's ) variables  to support  professional research. I have estimated variables that can be used in this work and I am not a member of the team nor am I paid so I must be an amateur.

There is a request out at the moment to monitor CH CYG which  is, at mag 7.7, an easy target in 10 x 50 binoculars.

Nigel

[xtreemchaos]

 hats off to all the pros, i wouldnt want to do it for money, spent hafe my life chasing it, it would get in the way of my enjoyment. charl. 

[Peter Drew]

I'm afraid that  "dedication and rigorous discipline" are at the opposite ends of my amateur involvement.  

[andrew s]

I suspect, as been said before, we all do it for love but the focus of that love can vary widely. I do astronomy for three main reasons. Firstly I am a physicist by background and enjoy keeping up with the hard science, secondly I like to make my own equipment and generally play with the toys and thirdly I like making observations preferably ones no one else is making.

This led me to spectroscopy. I did consider moving the kit to a clear skies site where I could get more observations but that would limit the chance to play with the kit and try out new instruments.

Can we contribute to hard science? I would say yes but the way we can do that is changing. Yes we will still have a role to play in variable or transient objects via photometry, and spectroscopy and we will still discover new objects but less so over time as the large automated surveys come on line. Where a new role has and will continue to emerge is to help process the enormous amounts of data now being produced by professional, ground and space based, instruments. It's not for me but each to his own.

Regards Andrew

[andrew s]

13 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

I'm afraid that  "dedication and rigorous discipline" are at the opposite ends of my amateur involvement.  

I am not sure I recognise either as playing much of a role in any aspect of my life!

Regards Andrew

[Dave Lloyd]

Most people get paid for one job. Any chosen activity other than that has to be amateur. Some of the " amateurs" on this forum are up with the best in their fields.

[Putaendo Patrick]

Thanks for the link to Sue Bowler's very interesting article.

It is perhaps ironic that it was published by the Royal Astronomical Society. Arguably in the 19th century, the RAS was the group which most helped to define an astronomical elite (serious, professional) versus an amateur, amateurish, dilettante public. Certainly in this period there were fewer openings for professional, paid astronomers - a handful of universities and the Royal Observatory in England. And certainly the high cost of decent telescopes limited astronomy to amateurs with a certain quantity of money. But the RAS was very much a gentleman's club, and not everyone was welcome. Women were ineligible until around the First World War (apart from two honorary fellows, Caroline Herschel and Mary Somerville). William F. Denning, the Bristol-based amateur who could in a way be considered the first British amateur in the 1860s, was refused when he first applied for RAS fellowship in 1872 not withstand the fact that the RAS had already published some of his observing notes.

The British Astronomical Association is now closely related to the RAS, they share the same building, with (in general) the RAS covering the professional community and the BAA covering the amateur. However when the BAA was formed in 1890 by the likes of Walter Maunder (of the Royal Observatory) and Agnes Clerke (third honorary FRAS in 1903), I suspect it was responding to the unwillingness of the RAS to incorporate a growing body of amateurs whose social class did not qualify them for establishment status.

As late as 1953 another amateur group was formed, the Junior Astronomical Society. The very name smacks of inferiority, although the names of the founders (including the late Sir Patrick Moore) prove this was far from the case. Today they are better known as the Society for Popular Astronomy.

Times have changed. Today's professional astronomers usually have a very specific higher education formation, most with (or aspiring to) PhDs. Many work with data obtained from multi-million pound equipment well beyond the reach of even the richest individual amateur. And to a large extent, they work as teams (seldom the case with amateurs). There are many very real differences, but perhaps at a psychological level the divide began back in the 19th century with the RAS?

[Stu]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

Quite correct. It has been contorted over the years to indicate one who does it without payment but I prefer to think I do it for the love of it

Do professionals look through an eyepiece or even own personal scopes?  . There are a few that do but the majority look at screens all day surely

Scott, that's bang on the money....?

My first thought was 'being a professional astronomer means never looking through an eyepiece, so I will always be an amateur, and a happy one at that!'

[saac]

5 hours ago, bingevader said:

I'll take the "unpaid and for pleasure and enjoyment" definition of amateur and yep, I'm definitely an amateur.

But I can't actually see anything wrong with that.

Personally, I've no desire to "fit in" with the "professionals".

I see awe inspiring sights from the bottom of my garden with comparatively inexpensive equipment, that'll do me, thanks.

I am with Ben on this, I revel in my non professional approach to astronomy.  I do it purely for fun, relaxation and enjoyment , while I teach Physics ,I have no interest in anything I do in my observing contributing to the body of knowledge save my own enjoyment and I doubt it would anyway.  I love the fact that my amateur status gives me licence to bodge up some kind of Heath Robinson apparatus to hold my camera to the telescope or keep condensation of the lens or challenging me on installing a hot chocolate machine in my obsy because my daughter thinks it will be cool.  I love the fact that I can labour over days to produce an image of Jupiter that quite frankly holds no scientific or aesthetic merit but to me it is a masterpiece because I overcame the challenges to produce it and I did it with my kit.

As for the article, I think the premise is a little naive. There is no question whatsoever that amateur astronomers continue to contribute to the professional field. By dint of sheer numbers alone, the more eyes on the sky the better chance of catching that fleeting event - remember, professionals have time and cash constrained use of telescopes and equipment.  They will also be often working on very narrow fields.  Public or "citizen" science, such as used in the recent BBC Stargasing Live, is an excellent way to get amateurs involved in screening and filtering large numbers of images in ways that would be beyond the professional realm.  All very commendable for the amateur who is so interested.  For me though, I am certainly well and truly in the for fun camp - this is my hobby, no performance indicators, no management plan, no health and safety inspections;  just me, my daughter, the night sky and a hot chocolate machine - happy days.

 

Jim

[barkis]

The Professional bodies have always acknowledged the Contributions  The Amateur Groups have made to
Astronomy. Of course there is a gulf between the two, but it is nowhere as large as it used to be.
Many Amateurs have very Professional capabilities, in Imaging the Deep Night Skies, building their own large Instuments, Including the Optics.
The biggest contribution I can conjure up, is  the means provided by this forum's members in helping others in furthering their Knowledge and understanding
of the Universe. Many youngsters are members, and possibly what inspires them as a result of that, may be a doorway to the Professional Arena.
It's no easy passage to the Profession, it takes long and hard study, but the Amateur for the most part is quite content to have his/her own playground
and thoroughly enjoy it too.

[saac]

 

From the article:

" If the amateurs had to make their own equipment and write their own software, we'd still be in the ‘dark’ ages. It takes a special person with enough optical, electronic and programming ability to build a CCD camera and computer-controlled telescope. "

You have got to laugh.

 

Jim

[barkis]

3 minutes ago, saac said:

 

From the article:

" If the amateurs had to make their own equipment and write their own software, we'd still be in the ‘dark’ ages. It takes a special person with enough optical, electronic and programming ability to build a CCD camera and computer-controlled telescope. "

You have got to laugh.

 

Jim

That statement is silly, but not funny. All those attributes can be found in the Amateur Communities

[Scott]

1 minute ago, barkis said:

That statement is silly, but not funny. All those attributes can be found in the Amateur Communities

And those things that the amateur does not make, he sources someone to do so.
Does a pro astronomer make his own scopes? doubt it. build his pc? nah. write his own software? on the back of someone elses scripting possibly. A very silly statement indeed

[saac]

I was being ironic barkis, hinting at the lack of awareness of what happens amongst some very talented amateurs - the author of the article need look no further than the talented folk on SGL or the wider open source community (ASCOM being a prime example).  I think it is funny given the inaccuracy of the statement and the premise of the article.  It is also somewhat disingenuous to claim or hint that professional astronomers lay a singular claim of ownership of "optical devices, computer driven scopes, CCDs", thereby ignoring  the contribution and efforts of what is a multidisciplinary field .  By analogy, the particle physicists at CERN, rely on mechanical, electrical and electronic engineers, software, hardware engineers, mathematicians, and statisticians to both design, construct their instruments and to assist in analysis of data. It is entirely laughable to suggest that professional astronomers, as a body,  design and build their own instruments and write their own software - they, the professional body, are reliant on the input and skills of a number of professionals. 

 

Jim

[Starwiz]

49 minutes ago, saac said:

 

From the article:

" If the amateurs had to make their own equipment and write their own software, we'd still be in the ‘dark’ ages. It takes a special person with enough optical, electronic and programming ability to build a CCD camera and computer-controlled telescope. "

You have got to laugh.

 

Jim

I'd like to meet this special person who builds all the telescope hardware, electronics, and programs all the software   

John

[barkis]

32 minutes ago, saac said:

I was being ironic barkis, hinting at the lack of awareness of what happens amongst some very talented amateurs - the author of the article need look no further than the talented folk on SGL or the wider open source community (ASCOM being a prime example).  I think it is funny given the inaccuracy of the statement and the premise of the article.  It is also somewhat disingenuous to claim or hint that professional astronomers lay a singular claim of ownership of "optical devices, computer driven scopes, CCDs", thereby ignoring  the contribution and efforts of what is a multidisciplinary field .  By analogy, the particle physicists at CERN, rely on mechanical, electrical and electronic engineers, software, hardware engineers, mathematicians, and statisticians to both design, construct their instruments and to assist in analysis of data. It is entirely laughable to suggest that professional astronomers, as a body,  design and build their own instruments and write their own software - they, the professional body, are reliant on the input and skills of a number of professionals. 

 

Jim

I was aware of your Ironic "You have to laugh"     Jim. I was merely reinforcing your brief rejection of the passage highlighted, hopefully to
prevent others from possibly missing it, although I doubt many would.  .