Whats an amateur astronomer?

I can tell you that last month A&S sent magazines to 3531 individual subscribers. But you could ask does someone who buys a magazine count as an amateur astronomer? I say no. My criteria would be to define an amateur astronomer as someone who observes the heavens on a REGULAR basis.

How could you ever estimate that number, however one thing is clear to me that in Ireland we do seem to have a much bigger interest in astronomy than other countries.

Oh dear - based on that criteria Dave, the fact that I haven't been to Goodison for over a year discounts me from being a supporter...

Anhow, none of us has had a chance to look at anthying for the last few weeks - weather is rubbish and the short nights don't help...

And funnily enough, I'm just reading a book with a foreword by an eminent professional astronomer who never done any observational astronomy in his guise as a professional...

I think the criteria for an amateur astronomer is difficult to pin down. In fact, the person above argues that there really isn't such a thing. If you define a professional astronomer a someone who earns money from the vocation (either via optics, a monitor or writing/reading articles on astronomical subjects), they may never actually see the sky at night. But they are still a professional astronomer... If you have someone who just reads about astronomy but never looks, (and doesn't get paid) they should be classed as an amatuer astronomer... Or should they? Its a tricky one!

The AI magazine subscriber numbers are very healthy indeed. Per capita that must be, as you say, pretty high on the world ranking tables....

Cheers

Dave

Oh dear - based on that criteria Dave, the fact that I haven't been to Goodison for over a year discounts me from being a supporter...

Slacker!! Call yourself a toffee!!

Seriously I dont think that is a fair comparison. A football supporter can still be a supporter even though you dont go to the ground. You still watch the games and cheer them on, so you are an active supporter

What is an amateur astronomer if he/she doesnt do any astronomy?

As for the eminent professional astronomer who doesnt do any observational astronomy, he/she still does astronomy, anyway hes a pro, were talkin amateurs. I'm not convinced that someone who just reads about astronomy counts as an amateur 'astronomer'. Surely the definition of 'astronomer' is someone who *practises* astronomy in an unpaid manner?

I'd love to get into the Gwladys Street end again but...

Its an interesting conundrum I think. The differentiator between professional and amateur is pretty clear - one gets paid, the other doesn't.

But I have to say that an amateur can still practice without doing any observational astronomy or very little. For example, there are amateurs out there doing astronomy but paying for time on robotic installations. All they see is what is on a monitor. But the work they do is phenominal (one hails from Dublin but I've not seen that person on these boards). Their work is recognised by professionals as top drawer stuff.

But would you classify that as observational astronomy? Looking at a PC screen? I would be another example. I'd say the last time I looked through an eyepiece was not far off a year ago. The last time I looked up at the sky for more than ten minutes was probably six months ago (if you don't count the eclipse ). But in the space of year, I've gotten an observatory code, submitted useful data to the MPC, confirmed a Supernova, been published...

I guess the sticking point is the definition of 'practise'. Sure, you'd be hard pressed to class as an amateur astronomer someone who just reads a magazine once a month. But what if they read two? And write a letter? Muse on quarks, strangeness and charm?... Perhaps the better term to use is 'contribute' - after all, anyone suffering from a vision impairment can still contribute tons to amateur astronomy but not necessarily be out every clear nigh gawping at the heavens...

As for the footy analogy, I'd consider myself an armchair supporter at this stage. Some would be unkind and use the term 'plastic'. Others would be unkind at the mention of Everton, but that's different beef I'd certainly shy away from the term 'active' supporter. But I do contribute, if only to shout at the Man in Black...

Its an interesting point.

Cheers

Dave

Interesting point Dave, I can count on one hand the amount of observing sessions I've been able to partake in this year. That's no exaduration. Yet I spend a lot of time on Astronomy. I keep up with the news, help keep this place ticking over and produce and Astronomy podcast as well as help out on the committee of Astro2. I don't do much astronomy in the sticktest sense of the word but I'd be very grumpy if I was told I didn't count as an amateur Astronomer!

BTW, the difference between an amateur and a proffesional is simple, a proffesional get paid by astronomy, an amateur puts all their pay into astronomy!

Bart.

Don't I know it!

There are plenty of folks out there like you - contributing in a predominantly non-observational manner, but contributing nonetheless. I think the definition of an amateur astronomer should be someone who contributes but doesn't get a salary. 'Contribute' would include many activities - reading, writing, podcasting, support activities, running a club...

Astronomy covers so many fields of science (and art) that contributions from all kinds of people of different skills is possible. Perhaps that's one of its main attraction to a lot of people. Being out there in the cold and wet is not a prerequisite!

Cheers

Dave

Astronomy covers so many fields of science (and art) that contributions from all kinds of people of different skills is possible. Perhaps that's one of its main attraction to a lot of people. Being out there in the cold and wet is not a prerequisite!

Dave:
I agree, when I said 'practicing' astronomy. I mean that in every sense of the word. However how does reading count as a contribution? Unless you actually do something with the knowledge gleaned thereby.
In my first post in this thread I referred to an amateur as someone who 'observes'. However you can take that in a very wide sense. I suppose what I would consider an observer is someone who takes in astronomical subject matter either by reading, observing or other means, tries to make sense of it and attempts to communicate it to his/her fellows.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at (and not doing a very good job of it) is that in order to be considered an astronomer either pro or amateur then you gotta do some astronomy (in the widest sense). Think about it, what is a fisherman who never fishes or a stamp collecter who doesnt collect stamps?

Surely anyone who even takes the time to discuss aspects of astronomy on these boards would qualify by those criteria?

BTW Bart can you move the relevent posts in this thread to another new thread? Its a fascinating discussion but I fear were hijacking JMP's thread.

Bart: IMO someone like yourself qualifies as an amateur in every sense of the word. You make a contribution in many ways, thats what really counts

You could also argue, by my criteria, that someone who sits under a scope every night but has no intention of every communicating the results of his/her observation or sharing those observations doesnt count as an amateur. I know such a person probably doesnt exist, thankfully!

Interesting topic!!