An odd little prejudice

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

I had a really great week last week. Managed to get 4, yes 4!, nights out with the scope and made some really nice catches. I have been fairly structured in my observing lately, focusing mainly on Messiers of which I now have recorded observations of 93 and as the reamining 7 are not visible at this time of year, I am engaging in doing something similar with objects within the Caldwell list, and last week was the serious start of that project. Anyways, I writes meself a little obs report (see here .... http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=52929 )
and I was pretty pleased with it. So I decided to venture into uncharted territory and posted said report on Cloudy Nights. Oddly I received only one comment and a then received a PM from that same person telling me that many many observers regard the Caldwell Objects list as an "Abomination" and people get "flamed" on CN for even mentioning it.
Has anyone else encountered this decidedly odd prejudice? As I understand it the list simply originated as an observing challenge, and I like the fact it honours in it's name Patrick Moore (whose middle name is Caldwell) who has done as much as anyone to popularise amateur astronomy and observational astronomy in the English speaking world.

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by barx1963

I had a really great week last week. Managed to get 4, yes 4!, nights out with the scope and made some really nice catches. I have been fairly structured in my observing lately, focusing mainly on Messiers of which I now have recorded observations of 93 and as the reamining 7 are not visible at this time of year, I am engaging in doing something similar with objects within the Caldwell list, and last week was the serious start of that project. Anyways, I writes meself a little obs report (see here .... http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=52929 )
and I was pretty pleased with it. So I decided to venture into uncharted territory and posted said report on Cloudy Nights. Oddly I received only one comment and a then received a PM from that same person telling me that many many observers regard the Caldwell Objects list as an "Abomination" and people get "flamed" on CN for even mentioning it.
Has anyone else encountered this decidedly odd prejudice? As I understand it the list simply originated as an observing challenge, and I like the fact it honours in it's name Patrick Moore (whose middle name is Caldwell) who has done as much as anyone to popularise amateur astronomy and observational astronomy in the English speaking world.

Yep. The Caldwell Objects is basically the extended Messier Catalogue with some southern objects tacked on. (The same could be said for the South African, (Jack) Bennett Catalogue, which has 130 objects - all southern.)
Apparently, Moore-or-less hadn't observed many of the southern ones. The litany of complaints is that mostly that he is no deep-sky observer, and he ain't no Messier. Worst is that his claims and observations have been proven to be dubious or embellished.

Nepotism among astronomers - amateur an professional - have always been scorn like the proverbial scarlet woman.

Patrick Moore has been very severely criticised over the years for his very poor research and sometime quite dubious claims — especially by the British and French commentators. I.e. Once when I prepared a paper on historical observations of Venus for formal publication, in which Moore is claimed to be an 'expert', I was told not to reference him else the paper would not be well received and would likely be rejected under peer review. Needless to say, I was a bit shocked at the time, until it was pointed out to me several dozen 'frauds' in his works. So I looked at all the "Moore-isms" and just removed them!

Great popularist, terrible researcher.

As for the Cadwell, he can't see south of −30-odd degrees from England, so what is his relationship to the southern skies, except tokenism and perhaps stamping his mark across the whole sky.

Personally, I think the listing is a good, if not great, one for the beginners. Like Bennett's, its mere existence is parochial at its best, however, Moore is an just additional unwarranted northern imposition.

Just my opinion, and from many observations of others commenting over the years. Cloudy Nights is just a reflection of this same sentiment.

As one wag said many years ago;

"Patrick should just stick observing the Moon, and publish fewer books that are better quality. Astronomy to him is like the pulp Mills and Boon novels. You know what happens in the end, and you know the basic storyline, as it is the same formula but a different rehash. Read one, you've read 'em all!"

Probably a bit harsh, but there you go…

[glenc (Glen)]

I think that the main problem with the Caldwell catalogue is that it renumbers objects that already have numbers. I don't want to learn new names for objects that already have names. If someone finds an object they have a right to name it, but not if they make up a list. Also some of the Caldwell objects are pretty faint. (e.g. NGC 3195)

[Robh (Rob)]

In his defence, Patrick Moore has done a lot to popularise astronomy. Some of his books are useful and interesting e.g. Atlas of the Universe, which is quite extensive. His Caldwell catalogue of 109 objects has no Messier objects and was an attempt to list a selection of the best all-sky objects. Re-listing objects as C1, C2... when they already had common names (e.g. NGC numbers) was seen as somewhat egotistical.
The catalogue was probably somewhat rushed. If he hadn't already numbered the objects, he could have modified the list to be more consistent e.g. brightness.
However, taken as an observing list it has its uses.

Regards, Rob.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Who cares what CN thinks?

Dave

[Enchilada]

Actually, the best catalogue would be a hybrid of Bennett, Calwell and Messier (BCM), which who have about 90+109++111 making 330 odd.
Would be a balanced selection instead of all three which have some bias depending on the hemisphere they were observed from….

Might piece one together?

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Patricks great, so many more facets to him than just his Astronomy.
I enjoy The Sky at Night, and wish that there was an Oz version.

[glenc (Glen)]

Here is a combination of Bennett, Calwell and Messier (BCM). There are 300 DSO.
The objects were selected from the Saguaro Astronomy Club Database version 8.0 .
http://www.saguaroastro.org/content/downloads.htm

[Davekyn (David)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Who cares what CN thinks?

Dave

I find Cloudy Nights to be a friendly bunch myself. In fact I would say they are more responsive and much more open to those less knowledgeable than themselves. You don't have to have 1000's of posts to mingle...not that I'm sugesting that ever be the case here...not at all ...

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by glenc

Here is a combination of Bennett, Calwell and Messier (BCM). There are 300 DSO.
The objects were selected from the Saguaro Astronomy Club Database version 8.0 .
http://www.saguaroastro.org/content/downloads.htm

Wow, Glen

Thanks for this, you beat me to the punch. Looks like my estimate is out by 29 objects. Still. It is a worthwhile and simple Top 300!

I'll do some further statistics on the listing, just to see how "balanced it is."

At a glance….

There are 123 southern objects to 174 northern ones, with only 48 south of −30 degrees declination (South Polar Cap) but 99 north of +30 degrees (North Polar Cap). If you take away the grand galaxies of Virgo, Canes Venetici and Coma Berenices, it is probably fairly balanced. (Too many galaxies???)

I suggest we must just transfer this to a new thread and see how it runs.

Cheers

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

I enjoy The Sky at Night, and wish that there was an Oz version.

They did. It was cancelled on the ABC not that long ago. Pity.

Agree with you sentiments here. Although much loved, his credentials among the BAA lobby are seemingly been found wanting.

I shared lunch with him once at a RASNZ Conference years ago. Had a really good ten or twelve minute chat, and got him to sign an astronomy book I was given in primary school (most improve boy, if you can believe it!). Engaging chap.

[ngcles]

Hi Enchilada & All,

Originally Posted by Enchilada

Yep. The Caldwell Objects is basically the extended Messier Catalogue with some southern objects tacked on. (The same could be said for the South African, (Jack) Bennett Catalogue, which has 130 objects - all southern.)
Apparently, Moore-or-less hadn't observed many of the southern ones. The litany of complaints is that mostly that he is no deep-sky observer, and he ain't no Messier. Worst is that his claims and observations have been proven to be dubious or embellished.

Nepotism among astronomers - amateur an professional - have always been scorn like the proverbial scarlet woman.

Patrick Moore has been very severely criticised over the years for his very poor research and sometime quite dubious claims — especially by the British and French commentators. I.e. Once when I prepared a paper on historical observations of Venus for formal publication, in which Moore is claimed to be an 'expert', I was told not to reference him else the paper would not be well received and would likely be rejected under peer review. Needless to say, I was a bit shocked at the time, until it was pointed out to me several dozen 'frauds' in his works. So I looked at all the "Moore-isms" and just removed them!

Great popularist, terrible researcher.

As for the Cadwell, he can't see south of −30-odd degrees from England, so what is his relationship to the southern skies, except tokenism and perhaps stamping his mark across the whole sky.

Personally, I think the listing is a good, if not great, one for the beginners. Like Bennett's, its mere existence is parochial at its best, however, Moore is an just additional unwarranted northern imposition.

Just my opinion, and from many observations of others commenting over the years. Cloudy Nights is just a reflection of this same sentiment.

As one wag said many years ago;

"Patrick should just stick observing the Moon, and publish fewer books that are better quality. Astronomy to him is like the pulp Mills and Boon novels. You know what happens in the end, and you know the basic storyline, as it is the same formula but a different rehash. Read one, you've read 'em all!"

Probably a bit harsh, but there you go…

I don't think that is necessarily an overly harsh criticism. I haven't been a huge fan of Moore's books and I really wonder whether he actually wrote most of them or just lent his name to them in return for payment because someone thought they'd sell better with his name on them. I get the same impression of same-old same-old. Compared to something like Burnham's opus magnum, many look amateurish and as Enchilada pointed out, there have been a litany of allegations that "... his claims and observations have been proven to be dubious or embellished" and "... Patrick Moore has been very severely criticised over the years for his very poor research and sometime quite dubious claims ..."

In fact there have been so many claims of this sort they are hard to ignore. Personally I'm not a fan of the Caldwell list mainly because I don't really see that it serves any important purpose. Everything in it is in another catalogue or several. Has Moore himself even observed them all -- no! Unless you travel the globe, you aren't going to be able to see it all so what is the point? I just see it as clutter. But, if you find his list useful, well ... use it. But personally, I wouldn't be in a hurry to "cite" it.

Without wanting to completely condemn Sir Patrick Moore who I believe is probably the greatest astronomy populariser of the current age (and for that we owe him a debt of gratitude), I think many amateurs (particularly advanced ones) saw his list as a transparent attempt at self-aggrandizement and perhaps self immortalization -- to hopefully place his own name up among the generations of amateur astronomers to come within the same league as Messier himself. Maybe even to supersede Messier's list? Whether that is or isn't true I guess only history will judge.

Messier, Mechain and guys like Dunlop, Herschel and Lacaille on the other hand were truly great visual observers (all things considered) and those who appreciate observing with a telescope will no doubt see that. Moore is not in the same league as these guys as an observer. Some cynics might say he's not even playing the same sport.

However, on the flip-side it is interesting that so many U.S based amateurs who leap to criticise the Caldwell list upon that very reasoning, are just as quick to claim ownership over and make motherhood statements about how they were the inventor of this or that "common name" for some obscure deep sky object -- and are thereby guilty of the same sin of which they accuse Moore.

Don't get me started on "common names" though ...


Best,

Les D

[glenc (Glen)]

The BCM list has 66 OC, 48 GC, 35 Neb, 30 PN and 120 Gxy.
I would like to see less OC and more Neb and PN.
e.g. 50 OC, 50 GC, 50 Neb, 50 PN and 100 Gxy.
A sample is attached. I made this list in 2005. The best objects are those in list A.
Month OND is Oct, Nov, Dec, far N is north of dec +45.

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by glenc

The BCM list has 66 OC, 48 GC, 35 Neb, 30 PN and 120 Gxy.
I would like to see less OC and more Neb and PN.
e.g. 50 OC, 50 GC, 50 Neb, 50 PN and 100 Gxy.
A sample is attached. I made this list in 2005. The best objects are those in list A.
Month OND is Oct, Nov, Dec, far N is north of dec +45.

Another useful listing, too!

The GC catalogue, anyone????

Just one minor comment. I think open star clusters are mostly given because they are usually (for the best ones) bright and easy to see in the telescope — even in city or in partial urban skies. Galaxies have the problem of being mostly seen in dark skies, and mostly exterminated under moderate sky illumination.

My own belief is that any lists of "best" objects, and objects in some "best list" has to be more scientific. (not necessary astronomical objects either. I.e. selections of product via marketing techniques) It has to be done based on weighting selected parameters, and ordering them by criteria. An example is by brightness, size, appearance and context, etc. Those with the highest total combined weighted scores, are then organised and rated from best to worst in the list.

By selecting only one basic criteria, or solitary combinations like surface brightness (magnitude/area), only ends up to tends to favour biased options rather than the more elusive subjective terms like "attractiveness" or "easy in observing" or "easy in finding", etc.

IMO the brightness of an object, say just by "magnitude", has a very arbitrary meanings, because the nature of different types of celestial objects I.e In stellar-like object versus non-stellar objects imply different things. Here basic differences between cluster and galaxy magnitudes convey different ideas of "best" or "easiest" objects to recommend.

I think that techniques like adding weights against various parameters of selected objects is far more useful than cherry picking based on constellation or 'x' number of specific objects.

Anyway, it doesn't detract from your listing here, Glen. It looks a good one.

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Well, I certainly sparked off a bit of discussion! As I have no knowledge of any problems with Patrick Moore, obviously I cannot comment on those, what I do know is that he is certainly a great populariser of our hobby, and that is a good thing. I see the list purely as another observing challenge. There are lots of interesting objects, some easy and spectacular and some very challenging. Anyways, it is all good.

[rider]

wow, you find out a lot about all sorts of things in IIS!
I thought he was just a TV presenter with a good subject to talk about.

I received a DVD of "the sky at night", a while back. -thought it was quite interesting, but the venerable Patrick needed english subtitles.

[Paddy (Patrick)]

I don't know much about Patrick Moore as an astronomer, but I love watching the Sky at Night DVDs that come with the magazine and not least for Patrick. He's quite a character.