Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 04-04-2010, 07:18 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 15,608
Our science section...

It is so nice to see the word "amateur" added to qualify the requirements of content ...here.

If one is not a "professional" scientist up until our change an "amatuer" could feel unworthy or could feel inferiour ..as they did not make their living from science and not tested or worthy because they had no experience, education or reason for participation other than sheer interest...they were deemed to feel their contributions unworthy......

all most reasonable...

and so..such that they must sit back and listen to the "professionals" rather than they.. offer any input...

I never felt the need to sit back and have honestly and openly shared my observations and research for the benefit of all... and moreover to allow all to place their scientific beliefs where they may..

Hopefully the inclusion of "amatuer" may help folk to express their "views" without fear of branding as a crackpot or nit wit... and on this point... what does a mans character and personal oddities have to do with the validity of an idea or its merit... it is so easy to attack the personal oddities... many fail to engage the argument or the premise that is confronting to our established views...but select an attack on character etc...most sad for the person attacking with such a sad excuse for a valid weapon to kill arguement....

the truth in the hands of a fool still remains the truth and many do not like that.... as truth should only be offerred by the like of Mosses or someone of his like...we do not enjoy it to come via what we regard as a fool.

To me it is clear that the scientific estabishement offers rather suspect views of how it may be...parrallel universes..multiple dimensions.dark matter...and the opportunity for particles to "pop" in and "out of" existence seems stupid to me even without the benifit of the math that will make it so... I feel such determinations are profoundly wrong....

and so as an amatuer I can say as much hopefuly without retribution... and maybe the inclusion of " amatuer " can allow a less constricted discussion of matters relating to science with out fear of any door being slammed shut with the closer proclaiming you know zip and that the world of knowlegde and discovery are not available to you to consider.



alex
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-04-2010, 08:40 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,630
Being "Amateur" in certain field of activity means not taking money for carrying out that specified activity.
However, the amateur status is not amnesty for being a crackpot.
Science has its procedures and processes.. or it is not science (amateur or not).

Actually, I disagree with addition of this adjective ("Amateur science"), It does not make much sense since there is not much real "amateur" science to discuss anyway.. And most of us are just bystanders and "voyeurs"..

Last edited by bojan; 06-04-2010 at 08:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-04-2010, 08:53 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,737
Maybe the title needs to change. It used to be called "Astronomy Science", and was for talking about "the science of astronomy, space exploration, etc.".

The addition of the word "Amateur" wasn't meant to meant "amateur science" or to encourage people with "out there ideas" - the wording change was meant to be inclusive of amateurs conducting astronomy science - whether it be supernova searches, variable star measurements, etc.

So, this section is for discussion of "Astronomy Science", (the science of astronomy), amateurs contributing to astronomy science, etc.

What's a better title for the sub-forum?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-04-2010, 09:07 AM
bird (Anthony Wesley)
Cyberdemon

bird is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rubyvale QLD
Posts: 2,627
Hi Mike, I understand why you made the name change, but now it does read a little bit like "amateur science"..

Maybe the title could go back to "Astronomy Science"... after all, science is science, whether it's done by amateurs or professionals.

cheers, Bird
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-04-2010, 09:10 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,630
Actually, the old title was quite OK.
Mentioning only "science" in the title does not exclude amateurs scientists.
Perhaps the title should specify General science.. with one of sub-sub-forums for astronomy science (including amateur?) specifically.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-04-2010, 05:53 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
I'd rephrase it as "General Science".

"Astronomy Science" is far too restrictive as many of the science topics are not astronomy related while "Amateur Science" does conjure up images of crackpot and opinionated ideas.

Regards

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-04-2010, 10:18 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,324
"Space and Science"

Regards, Rob
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-04-2010, 12:18 AM
marki's Avatar
marki
Waiting for next electron

marki is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,427
Don't underestimate the value of the crackpot theorist, they set the stage for anyone willing to deconstruct their arguments using solid well considered scientific theory. Comments such as get a science degree or keep out etc are not very useful and if you are truly interested in educating people (the purpose of this forum I believe) you will resist the urge to sledge and champion the science instead. As for the title it is of little relevence, the crackpots will turn up no matter what you call it.

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-04-2010, 11:03 AM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Sometimes, though, the "crackpots" come up with some pretty amazing things that actually have some basis in "real science", or could advance "real science"...even if the ideas are coming from totally out of left field.

Some of our best science and greatest discoveries have come from "crackpots".
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-04-2010, 01:08 PM
Nesti (Mark)
Registered User

Nesti is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by marki View Post
Don't underestimate the value of the crackpot theorist, they set the stage for anyone willing to deconstruct their arguments using solid well considered scientific theory. Comments such as get a science degree or keep out etc are not very useful and if you are truly interested in educating people (the purpose of this forum I believe) you will resist the urge to sledge and champion the science instead. As for the title it is of little relevence, the crackpots will turn up no matter what you call it.

Mark
Damn Mark, it's actually frightening when I read those words and look at your Avatar picture at the same time.

Feel like I've been abducted or something.



What about the 'Scientific Method and Engaging Galactic Science'...SMEGS for short?

Last edited by Nesti; 07-04-2010 at 01:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-04-2010, 01:09 PM
Nesti (Mark)
Registered User

Nesti is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
sometimes, though, the "crackpots" come up with some pretty amazing things that actually have some basis in "real science", or could advance "real science"...even if the ideas are coming from totally out of left field.

Some of our best science and greatest discoveries have come from "crackpots".

Quantum Electrodynamics!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-04-2010, 01:13 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Exactly

String Theory
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-04-2010, 03:00 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
What ideas have come out of left field that define QED and String Theory?

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-04-2010, 03:23 PM
Jarvamundo (Alex)
Registered User

Jarvamundo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 406
Quote:
Some of our best science and greatest discoveries have come from "crackpots".
Revolutionary steps usually do follow that progression. Science has a history of crackpots later being recognized as heros.

Creativity does have it's place, without different ideas we just march to a collective drum, with no sense to explore.

To suggest ideas will only come from within the 'scientific elite' is a bit.... well... religious.

I think as long as we discuss the particulars of the theory and evidence, we'll be fine and hopefully inspire some up-comers along the way. Those who have posted so far will probably form the base of that self moderating community.

Astronomy Science sounds good... i didn't think it had to change...

Best,
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-04-2010, 03:43 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
What ideas have come out of left field that define QED and String Theory?

Steven
The original ideas were thought of as being crackpot (=hard to understand and beyond orthodox)...although if you listen to a lot of physicists, they still think String Theory is left of centre

But that could be said for most theories.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-04-2010, 04:12 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo View Post
Revolutionary steps usually do follow that progression. Science has a history of crackpots later being recognized as heros.

Creativity does have it's place, without different ideas we just march to a collective drum, with no sense to explore.

To suggest ideas will only come from within the 'scientific elite' is a bit.... well... religious.

I think as long as we discuss the particulars of the theory and evidence, we'll be fine and hopefully inspire some up-comers along the way. Those who have posted so far will probably form the base of that self moderating community.

Astronomy Science sounds good... i didn't think it had to change...

Best,
Creativity and science must go hand in hand. Science needs creativity in order to progress and flourish and creativity needs science as another outlet for our mental abilities.

The problem with much of science is that it has become (or can be) elitist and very dogmatic. People with ideas outside of the box and/or outside of their accepted fields usually get roundly castigated and treated like heretics. Woe betide someone with no academic background coming up with something. Yes, it's true that if you don't have a solid background in whatever you're talking about, chances are you won't know what you're on about, but sometimes it takes a fresh mind and new perspective to see things that those who deal in the subject matter miss. Having a critical measure of thought is essential in science, but being dogmatically skeptical about an idea or proposal just because it's not scientific orthodoxy, is plain and stupidly arrogant. Each generation of scientists has the bad habit of thinking that what it thinks it knows is the pinnacle of knowledge. In actual fact, they know less than they did beforehand...simply because the more they know and learn, the more the number and complexity of questions increases. Therefore, they have even more to find out than before!!. It's your best example of an infinite recursive loop in non computational logic

Everything has to be weighed on its merits. Not dismissed out of hand because it doesn't sound right or appears "stupid". Even if you voice that opinion openly.

Like you said, openly discuss things and see where that goes...in all cases. With common sense, things should self moderate rather well.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-04-2010, 06:20 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
The original ideas were thought of as being crackpot (=hard to understand and beyond orthodox)...although if you listen to a lot of physicists, they still think String Theory is left of centre

But that could be said for most theories.
Crackpot theories by definition are logically inconsistent and doesn't reflect on the complexity and/or unorthodoxy of the theory.
Perhaps the term "revolutionary" is more apt.

BTW welcome back.
Where have you been?

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-04-2010, 07:47 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
Creativity and science must go hand in hand. Science needs creativity in order to progress and flourish and creativity needs science as another outlet for our mental abilities.
Carl,
Agree whole-heartedly!
Great to see you back on the forums.

Regards, Rob.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-04-2010, 10:45 PM
marki's Avatar
marki
Waiting for next electron

marki is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,427
Yes it's good to see you back Carl. Mark perhaps you have been abducted by aliens. Scientific method is of course paramount to any argument presented here. As I said educate not belittle and eradicate.

Mark

Last edited by marki; 07-04-2010 at 11:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-04-2010, 11:02 PM
Nesti (Mark)
Registered User

Nesti is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
Crackpot theories by definition are logically inconsistent and doesn't reflect on the complexity and/or unorthodoxy of the theory.
Perhaps the term "revolutionary" is more apt.

BTW welcome back.
Where have you been?

Steven

Reckon Carl got a little side-tracked by a FNQ lady.

How are the studies going???
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
ScopeDome Australia
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement