Doing 'Real' Science

[higginsdj]

Hi all,

I'm seeking more fodder for my proposed NACAA paper next year, again somewhat related to the previous Pro/Am collaboration discussions (aimed solely at the astronomical sciences only).

Some questions to ponder and respond to (but certainly not restricted to these)

1. Do you do 'Real' Science?
2. What do you think 'Real' Science is?
3. Do you 'reinvent the wheel' so to speak (perhaps just to prove you can do the observation/analysis etc)? ie being of of 200 observers reporting photometry for the same target on the same night or performing astrometry on a target who's position/orbit is know with an uncertainty smaller than the error of your own observations.
4. If you do any form of scientific work - what is it and why do you do it.

No-one will be judged here and there are no right or wrong answers.

Cheers

[higginsdj]

I'll start the ball rolling....

1. Yes
2. Anything that adds to our knowledge of astronomy but I do not believe in re-inventing the wheel - unless I want to see if the shape can change.
3. Yes - sometimes I think it is good for the soul to repeat what has been done before just to prove that I can do it and see the results for myself though, perhaps, such work is not 'real' science.
4. Minor Planet Photometry and the search for their binary nature. I love the analysis work, love the probability* of discovery, enjoy the recognition and the sense of achievement. Variable star work - but only on thosee targets not well covered by others

* Note - I no longer use the word possibility when referencing the discovery aspect of the work.

For those who 're-invent the wheel' etc, I wonder if there is a fear of venturing out of the safe zone of already knowing the result? Comments?

Cheers

[ving (David)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

1. Do you do 'Real' Science?
2. What do you think 'Real' Science is?
3. Do you 'reinvent the wheel' so to speak (perhaps just to prove you can do the observation/analysis etc)? ie being of of 200 observers reporting photometry for the same target on the same night or performing astrometry on a target who's position/orbit is know with an uncertainty smaller than the error of your own observations.
4. If you do any form of scientific work - what is it and why do you do it.

1. no, I just observe and take pictures
2. to me it is obvious that real science is that which contributes to the knowledge base of astronomy thru measurements caluculations and other scientific stuff which is mostly over my head and which would probably turn me off what i do . real science is not just oogling at nebulas thats just plain looking at stuff, and its not taking pictures of planets cause thats just photography.
3. I just observe, i dont measure or anything at this stage. I provide lists of binaries for the sole purpose of giving people who would otherwise have given up and gone inside where its warm something new to look at.... with limited budget and aperture who wants to look at the same galaxies/nebs over and over?
4. see 3.

[higginsdj]

Well pretty pictures, if they are studied, can generate 'real' science - ie the discovery of new nebulousity, a new Nova, Supernova, comet, asteroid, NEO etc. One might spot changing surface features on the planets or moons.

Cheers

[ving (David)]

too true, generally speaking i think you will find most take picture just cause they look pretty tho
nothing wrong with that of course.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

1. Do you do 'Real' Science?
2. What do you think 'Real' Science is?
3. Do you 'reinvent the wheel' so to speak (perhaps just to prove you can do the observation/analysis etc)? ie being of of 200 observers reporting photometry for the same target on the same night or performing astrometry on a target who's position/orbit is know with an uncertainty smaller than the error of your own observations.
4. If you do any form of scientific work - what is it and why do you do it.

Hi David, in answer to your questions

1. Yes
2. To me and in the amateur sense real science includes things such as variable star measurement, occultations, multiple star measurements, comet hunting, nova & supernova searches. These sort of things and a lot more I haven't mentioned are the sort of thing an amateur can do without having to outlay a small fortune.
3. No or at least I don't think I do.
4. Supernova searches, It's still in its infancy while I'm building up my library of target galaxy images for comparison.Why, I enjoy it as an ongoing project that I can build on each time I have an imaging session and I like the idea of being the first person to see something that spectacular.

Cheers

[Karls48 (Karl)]

1.) Not really, but I’m trying to. I know that just looking on night sky with telescope is not satisfactory for me. I want to understand the Universe and contribute (however little) to understanding of it. I tried to do double stars position measurements, but I found out that my equipment is not good enough to the task. I know my limitations in the lack of formal astronomical knowledge and in limitations of my equipment. So after evaluating what can I do I decide to do most of my research on capturing meteors images. After many trials I come up with solution using cheap security video motion detection card for PC. At present I’m testing it with different cameras and different video capture rates. Once I’m satisfied with its performance this set-up will be permanently mounted in my backyard to capturing images of meteors in the field of view of the camera. Images will be available to anyone who wants to use them.

2.) Anything that can enhance and advance our knowledge of the nature.

3.) Yes, sometimes. There is just so much of data available on any point of interest that it sometimes takes longer to find out if it has been already done, then if you do it yourself

4.) I don’t know what drives men to try to understand how things work and why. I suppose it is this urge that made us most advanced species on this planet. Perhaps it is deep down buried information that unless we advance we will die out like so many species before us.

I must add that I got very limited understanding of mathematics and that makes my choices of doing something useful in astronomy very restricted.

[iceman (Mike)]

Hi David
I could probably dig up what I wrote in the previous pro/am collaboration thread, I don't think too much has changed for me in that time.

1. Yes and No
2. I doubt I could add much more to what the others have said. Measurements through observing and imaging which, once analysed, help to add to our understanding of how things formed, how things evolve, how they interact, etc.
3. No, I don't think so.
4. I submit my images for study to groups such as the BAA, JUPOS, ALPO, CMO and IOPW. That is, i'm not doing the scientific work myself, but the hope is that my images can be used and studied which may uncover or reveal something that can be used as 'real' science.
Quite a few Aussies (myself included) have had our work used in journals such as the BAA and in a submission to Nature, and I've worked in collaboration with Glenn Orton (JPL) with some Jupiter imaging, so I guess that shows that amateurs (even just taking pretty pictures) can make contributions to real science.

I love reading about the work that amateurs do with photometry, astrometry, occultation timings, etc. I'd love to get involved with some of that in the future but at this stage, I don't have the time or motivation to go further with it.

Also like Karl, my knowledge of Maths and Physics is not my strongest point which can limit my usefulness in that field

[Rob_K]

Very interesting thread DJ, and you are to be congratulated! My answers are:

1. No
2. See below
3. N/A
4. No.

Like most recreational astronomers though, I am on my own personal journey of understanding the science of the Universe through my hobby. But this is not practising science by any measure.

I am in absolute awe of what amateurs are contributing to the scientific field. On IIS, we see people such as cometman discovering new comets, your own work in the asteroid belt, others recording grazing and other occultations, planetary imagers contributing to research programs, some searching for supernovae, etc. But I think we need to examine what this contribution is. Is it science? Scientific method may be rigorously followed, but ultimately I think you are data collectors – technicians. Science is about mechanics, about understanding processes. So your data becomes the raw material for science to interpret and shape our understanding of the cosmos. Discovering objects – comets, supernovae, asteroid moons etc – is no more science than ‘twitching’ is ornithology.

This is not meant to demean the enormous discipline, dedication, knowledge and skill involved in amateur data collection, or its value to science. Even in the professional field, data collection from the major world observatories is largely undertaken by technicians (admittedly through much more automated means than those available to amateurs!) and then distributed to a range of professionals for analysis. This is where the science is.

It would be easy to be dismissive and say what on earth can our puny dobs, SCTs, SDMs etc do to add significant information to that gained by orbiting NASA & other satellite probes, or to roll back the universe like the massive earth or space-based telescopes. But the simple answer is that the big eyes can’t be everywhere at once, observatory time is at a premium, and amateur scopes are bigger than they used to be (except mine! ) & more numerous. The amateur input is marginal I'd suggest though, and wouldn't form any sort of significant percentage of the data used in astronomy science - correct me if I'm wrong.

However I feel that the limiting factor in amateur participation in 'real' astronomy science is a basic one. The people who do the science have done the hard yards – degrees (masters/doctorates), followed by years of work & training in research facilities, in highly specialised fields. In other words, we just don’t have the tools to do it. No reason we can’t put our two bob’s worth in though, but however much we want to dress it up as science, its basis can’t be any more than speculative or intuitive, unless we do the hard yards too.

Hope I haven’t offended anyone!

Cheers -

[higginsdj]

Hi Rob,

Wow, a truly honest appraisal of the state of things. Your main theme appears quite valid - some other points to consider.

On the whole most amateurs (myself included) are data collectors but as many professionals will attest to, amateurs have many skills that the professionals simply do not possess some that have been mentioned:
Project Management,
Analysis,
Computing Skills,
Technical writing, authoring and publishing skills.

Don't get me wrong, the pro's have these skills as they need to develop them - but they are not well tuned and the Pro's can, in fact, be classed as the amateurs in these areas. Yes - they have done the hard yards - in the science - but everything else is likely self taught or OJT.

The comment about scientists being handed the data for analysis is not true though. The technicians will drive the scope and take the images, change the filters etc but the raw images are left for the scientists to FTP to their own PC's to calibrate, measure and then analyse.

Working out the spin rate of an asteroid or the period of a binary star, measuring the physical size of an asteroid or uncovering the binary nature and physical parameters of the system are all scientific endeavors - yes we didn't discover the means of undertaking the analysis - but many of us still undertake the analysis - just like the pro's do.

But, of course, this could still be deemed to be just data collection. So, what is 'real' science. ie 10 years ago, asteroids were considered to be too small to have moons - is uncovering their binary nature 'real' science? Theorising why they are binary is probably 'real' science - so is theoretical science the only thing that can be considered 'real' science?

Your point about amateur involvement being minimal, does of course depend on which aspect of the science you are looking at. In specialist areas, there are more amateurs than pro's (the work I do) which is perhaps why amateurs win grants in this field (my mentor in the states is an amateur and he has won grants from NASA). From a figures standpoint, 128 binary asteroids are known, 84 Main Belt of which 44 are amateur discoveries.

Of course 'study' and hard yards aspect of years of study etc doesn't stop some of us pursuing the study aspects for ourselves (there are many here who have or are on their way toward various levels of degrees in the science). But you point is well taken as a common theme from the postings to date indicates a lack of knowledge or skill in say math or physics but no mention about the desire to gain said knowledge. From my own experience to date - it's not rocket science though it can be quite a journey!

Note that I am NOT taking sides in this discussion and all points are valid as they have an impact on amateur involvement in astronomy.

The discussion is certainly getting interesting.

Cheers

[Rob_K]

Thanks for that informative reply DJ, and all good points.

I'd like to pose a hypothetical if I may, to stimulate some thinking on the pro/amateur divide. What would happen if each person on IIS was granted, say, an hour's time on the Hubble Space Telescope, with the following provisos:

1. That their use of Hubble would be aimed at improving our understanding of the Universe;
2. That this aim could be clearly elucidated.

I realise that Hubble does not necessarily suit all pros in their endeavours, but it's just an example for the sake of argument. Now I know what your answer would be DJ but I know that I would be utterly lost . How many of us could comply (without lying of course, just to get a shot at it!!! )?

Cheers -

[higginsdj]

Hi Rob,

Yes, I have often pondered that if or when I complete my Masters (and other pre-requisites) what would I do for a PhD? To be frank I have no idea what would constitute the required 'new science'.

Not to upset any pro's out there but I would imagine that there are varying levels of Professionals - from the Genius to the run of the mill. I would imagine that the average amateur may think that all Pro's are geniuses - I do not believe they are. (I think it would be like saying all doctors or all lawyers etc are geniuses).

Most are just average guys who spend years working, researching and teaching, many collaborating at the bleeding edge of knowledge but not certainly not leading it. As we have discussed before, everyone has their niche and collaborations do not choose everyone with the same level of skill and knowledge in the same area - I would imagine doing so would lead to a great many arguments :-)

Cheers

[Rob_K]

Yes, well fortunately you don't have to be a genius to operate Hubble (or Keck, or Arecibo, or New Horizons, or SOHO, etc etc), because there are lots and lots of highly skilled technicians to do that for you!

Everyone does have their niche, and as in any field from ditch-diggers to brain surgeons there are the 'punters' and the 'achievers'! But I'd bet a dollar that even the lowest-level pro astronomer doing his/her daily grind has some pet project or dream that if only he/she could get funding, a bit of decent telescope time, then...... It's the nature of professions, and I suppose ultimately the nature of us all.

Sorry to take you away from your thread DJ - promise I won't reply again. I look forward to many more responses to your questions!

Cheers -

[higginsdj]

HI Rob,

It's all relevant to the thread as far as I am concerned so please continue putting forward your views. As I said - there's no right or wrong here (within reason)

Cheers

[higginsdj]

One other point I would like to make is that not all professional astronomers theorise about the universe. Many are involved in advancing the measn of data collection and analysis, new telescope design, advanced ccd/imaging devices, spectroscopy etc. It's not all directly about the universe.

Cheers

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

Nice topic.

I would guess that the majority of us (myself included) are little more than star-gazers who have contributed nothing to the science - and there is nothing wrong with self-gratification

Some have made useful observations that have been used by scientific analysts both paid and unpaid to make some contribution (I am trying to do this)

Maybe a few represent those who are actively adding to our knowledge and can call themselves scientists (I will NEVER do this!)

Tycho Brahe was an observer, Kepler a Scientist - I would call both astronomers. Professionalism is a measure of pay and not ability. But in resopnse to the original question:

1 No, I only measure things.
2 Putting froward a hypotheis and proving/disproving it!
3 Only for training.
4 Not astronomically.

[higginsdj]

Don't let anything anyone says in this thread dissuade you from expressing your own opinions on the subject and providing your own definitions. I'm keen to get a feel for the gamut of opinion out there.

Cheers

[duncan]

Hi all,
I've been off for a few days so missed this thread.
But just a quick point for all those who think they are just stargazers!
Every time you look through your scope or take a photo, if something was there that you couldn't explain,you would ask or try to find out what it was.
I wonder just how many discoveries have been made like this! So i guess what is real science is simply our own curiosity to look up at the heavens.
As for re-inventing the wheel, i tried that but got whiplash every time the square rolled over.LOL.
Very interesting thread,thanks for posting it Dave.
Cheers,
Duncan

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Hi David
After reading replies to your tread I would like add few things to what I written previously.
I don’t care how the system or other people classify what I do in Astronomy or other endeavours of life. I do it because I want to do it and that’s good enough for me.
My view on any “system” (be it political, scientific or whatever) is extremely sceptical as to system motives and ability to present unbiased view of issues under such system jurisdiction. This view is based on my experience and on the recorded history. To put it in nutshell, if World scientific body decides that something works this way, it is not necessary so. The history is full of examples of theories that (after due peer reviews) were completely wrong. And the theories that has been conceived to suit political or economical pressures. At same time I recognize that such a systems are necessary to maintain orderly progress.
As far your comment about the learning I do try to learn more about Astronomy. I have listen to lectures Prof. Richard Pogge that I downloaded from Web and I think it is very good that some Universities make their lectures available on Web. I regularly read articles about Astronomy and follow it up, if possible. Higher maths that’s other story. When I start reading maths textbook it takes me about ten minutes to fall asleep.
My “research” or better, lets call it data collection has specific aims. To compile statistic of magnitude, speed, duration of visibility and direction of meteor images captured. Ultimate achievement would be to capture image of meteor originating from outside of solar system (if such a beast exist). Or to help someone to find meteoroid with captured image of it. Later on I want to add directional microphone (and another computer) to capture sound of larger meteors. As I said above, I don’t care if it is real science, data collection or just having fun.
Finally I want to say that I very much agree (from my own experience)
with your comments about some scientists being raw amateurs in endeavours other then their main field of study

[higginsdj]

An interesting side note - 'The Scientific method' - I always thought this required the description of a theory that provided a means by which it could be disproved by observation.

How many theories are out there that can not be tested observationally? (Rhetorical question but might make an interesting topic in it's own right!)

Cheers