(Viewed 2,818 times)

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Who Deserves the right to be called an "Astronomer"?

In a recent coorespondance I had, I referred to a collegue of mine as a fellow Astronomer. This very nice person is just as qualified, if not more in the field as I am. In a return note, I was thanked for the sincerety, but the person would rather be described as an "enthusiast" in deference to the degreed and professional Astronomers out there. Now I respect this person decision, but I think the individual is denying their rightful title.

Now, this is where I have a problem, and here is my simple opinion...

The only difference between a professional Astronomer and an amateur Astronomer is the salary and academic status, compared to the guy who does it for sheer love of it without compensation. We all know some amateur Astronomer who can beautifully describe the subtle movements of planetary mechanics or explain complex atomic structure theory of black holes.

I think an enthusiast is a person who watches others and enjoys the effort from the outside. Such as I am a great manned space travel fan and enthusiast, as I will never be an astronaut. So I enjoy watching others sit atop a controlled bomb explosion and whisked off into space. But in Astronomy, I can stand next to the highest degreed person alive today, and participate in observing the same objects as he/she.

Are amateurs any less of an Astronomer because of lack of advanced degrees? I say most heartedly...no! The kid with a pair of binoculars who can identify the night sky in any season is certainly an astronomer, as is the person with a 24" Truss reflector, peering into distant globular clusters in the desert of Arizona. Our good friend Don Macholz who discovered no less then 10 comets is no less an astronomer than the director of any observatory USA, with a Phd in astrophysics. I'll be damned if I'm going to look down my nose at someone who has never peered through a Apo refractor, but instead soley used their 4.5" reflector. Or one who can call out all 88 constellations, but no telescope. It's all the same difference, it's only the dedication and passion that makes a person an Astronomer.

In this board, I started a thread in where I dispise the all too common negative astronomer attitudes, some from professionals, but mostly from amateurs. You all have piped in on that, and I say that respect regardless of formal education, or lack therof, is earned on a one to one basis, and is not Carte Blanc in admiration, idol worship nor awe.

I can appreciate someone who has mastered an advanced degree in astronomy, quite cool really, but I don't consider myself any less of an Astronomer because I have neither the acknlowledgement, or status of an assigned salaried Astronomer. We all have our place in this field, but as my passion drives me to continue to explore astronomy and share the night sky with others, I feel that I am not alone. There is a hell of lot I don't know, and yes...the advanced degreed person can probably run circles around me, but yet, I and others still consider me an Astronomer.

So in conclusion...this knowledgable person who has shown hundreds of people the heavens with great passion feels that they are just an enthusiast in astronomy, but I think otherwise. Don't anyone sell themselves short.

So with pride and confidence, I sign off as...

Chicago Astronomer Joe

;D

[stargazer]

I will admit when I was in Fla I got to meet alot of people. Some were very niceothers seem kinda standofish. But all in all alot of people will and do look down at you if your not up to their standards of knowledge.

I know people who have the degrees and get paid for being an Astronomer and they have all told me to keep going and NEVER give up. They are just like you and me. They got their start just like we did. We all had to learn one way or another. I have never called myself an "Amateur Astronomer "just an "Astronomer". If people dont like it oh well. Its their problem not mine. Having had to del with the idots I did taught me a lesson, Maybe they feel thretened that your either going to take away their jobs or you know more then they do.

We are all Astronomers weither we get paid or not.

Becky

[Centaur]

No license is necessary to be an astronomer. A PhD is a nice credential, but hardly a requirement. Many amateurs are far more knowledgable than some of the pros about certain aspects of the discipline. Anyone who is well versed in the subject can call himself an astronomer, especially if he shows respect for the scientific method. If others seek his counsel on the subject, that further substantiates his claim to the title.

[Maddad]

I like that response Centaur.

[Paulie pchris00]

This is an interesting question. I usually refer to myself as an astronomer. Sometimes I precede that with "amateur;" sometimes I do not. As I've been gaining experience and confidence, I refer to myself as an amateur astronomer less and less.

The word "astronomer," to me, is kind of a catchall. I consider Keplar an astronomer, although he was more a theoretical and mathematical astronomer than an observational astronomer. Likewise, technicians working NASA's unmanned planetary missions are generically referred to as astronomers, even though I think of them more as planetary scientists. I don't think they would be offended being called astronomers though.

I think anybody who has a bit of background knowledge, and either watches the sky, or uses calculations to predict celestial events can accurately be called an astronomer. It's not required that any of us be experts on any given topic within the hobby, as long as we enjoy what we're doing.

So far I have shown three professional astrophysicists celestial sights or events that they had not previously seen (huge ego stroke, btw). Pros and amateurs go about observing in different ways, but, at least from the astrophysicists I've been fortunate enough to meet, there is a mutual respect for what the other does. As I make even more contacts in the field, I think it's only a matter of time before I show another professional astronomer something they've never seen before.

We do what we do because we love it. Of all the adjectives I could use to describe myself, astronomer is one of the first that comes to mind, and maybe my favorite. I no longer feel compelled to qualify it with "amateur." I look at the sky, I see what is there, and I observe what interests me. Someday I'll even be good at it.

Chicago Astronomer Paulie

[-=CROMAN=-]

It's all semantics to me. I consider myself an astronomer because I have a growing knowledge of the night sky that I share with others. Astronomy is the science of studying the night sky. I consider myself a student of the night sky just as any other Phd would consider themselves a student.

My 10 year old daughter wrote a paper in school last month about her dad the astronomer. She was informed by her teacher that since I do not get paid to look through a scope that I am not an astronomer in her eyes. My daughter was upset about this as she was told that in front of the classroom after presenting her paper.

In the end I truly don't care if someone thinks I'm an astronomer or not. I'm dedicated to learing the sky and it's secrets. If that doesn't make me an astronomer in the eyes of others so be it. I love what I do and enjoy the new friendships I have made through astronomy. I'll use the term Amateur Astronomy on my website simply to get better indexing on google!

In the end it's all about knowledge and sharing to me. I guess that makes me an astronomy teacher to those who ask questions of me. Astronomy Teacher..... Ha! put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[tomlee]

you can call me the art of astronomering without astronomering

[patrickm]

As so often happens, the teacher spoke confidently out of ignorance. Maybe her next paper should be about the title of this thread.

The Wikipedia page pretty quickly points out how wrong she was. I don't think this makes me an astronomer in my own mind, especially since I can't even collimate a scope, but I'm quite sure that Thierry Legault is one for example.

And the teacher was wrong.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

The only thing amateur about astronomers is attitude.

Chicago Astronomers have the best attitude.

[magic612]

From the Wikipedia page:

Based on strict dictionary definitions, "astronomy" refers to "the study of objects and matter outside the Earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties"[5] and "astrophysics" refers to the branch of astronomy dealing with "the behavior, physical properties, and dynamic processes of celestial objects and phenomena"

Honestly, I think most of the pros are more accurately described as astrophysicists. Some are astronomers. I use the modifier "amateur" for myself, because the only formal training I have in the field is a single astronomy class in college. I'm not sure that qualifies me to call myself anything more than amateur, to be blunt about it.

At the same time, amateurs can be quite adept at the science, and do things that professionals rely upon for their own work but do not have the time for themselves - variable star estimations come to mind. I am a member of the AAVSO, and have submitted variable star estimations. I figure that makes me an astronomer - though not professional, as it is not my first line of work (though it may be one day!).

The etymology of the word "astronomy" is not like many sciences, and the "onomy" suffix comes from "astron + nomos" meaning "star arrangement," literally. As amateur astronomers, are we familiar with the "stars' arrangement"? I'd argue we are. So are we astronomers? Yes. But rather than confuse the issue when speaking with others, I do add "amateur" for myself - for now.

[Paulie pchris00]

Dec 29, 2011 17:43:04 GMT -6 Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe said:

The only thing amateur about astronomers is attitude.

Chicago Astronomers have the best attitude.

I agree. Give me a scope and a clear sky, and my cynical and combative nature disappears.

I can think of quite a few professionals whose attitudes left something to be desired, Edwin Hubble being the most prominent. Galileo might also be in that group. He was right, of course, but a more accommodating attitude might have helped keep him off of house arrest.

One of my personal heroes in astronomy, Milton Humason, had no education beyond eighth grade. Of course he went on to become Hubble's assistant, and a fair observer in his own right. Hubble's sensitive ego wouldn't let him work with an educated peer, so he grabbed Humason to do his grunt work.