Whats an amateur astronomer?

....I would stand by the definition that an amateur astronomer is someone who observes (for whatever reason - the physics or the sheer beauty of it), if all you do is read about it then you merely have an interest, you are not really participating, and therefore don't really warrant the title. I'm not belittling the reader, but theres a big difference between reading about other's experiences and having those experiences for yourself. Observation is no small part of Astronomy (particularly Amateur Astronomy).

I have to agree with John on this. Having an interest in and reading about football doesn't make you a footballer, the same holds true for astronomy. I personally do observe (but not nearly as often as I would like!!) but I still don't count myself as an astronomer, amateur or otherwise, more of a skywatcher or stargazer. I don't feel I have yet earned the title yet, and it must be earned. I'm not sure how much I will have to do to earn it, but I think I'll know when the time comes.

...actually, on reflection, I do know what makes someone an astronomer.

Astronomy is a science.
Therefore, an amatuer astronomer is an amatuer scientist
Thus an astronomer must be actively involved in the science.
Q.E.D.

I cannot be an amatuer astronomer as I only observe for the beauty of the sky, not for any scientific reasons.

Hmm - interesting. I guess reading alone is not enough - I'd have to agree with that. There has to be some other form of contribution to 'earn' the title for sure.

Not so sure about your premise though Leo - e.g take Rob Gendler - his images are professional quality, with almost professional equipment. But its not science - it most certainly is art. But what art... And his images for sure have inspired many others to follow the path and have wowed the general public too. That is a significant to amateur astronomy with no real scientific output. But clearly an output nonetheless. Add in Jim Misti, Adam Block and a few others and there's a significant number of non-scientific amateurs who are contributing in a very exciting way. take a look at robgenlerastropics.com some time soon and you'll see what I mean.



Dave

Wow, have just taken a look at www.robgendlerastropics.com , some fabulous images there!

However, I would think that astrophotgraphy is in itself scientific, as well as artistic. That astrophotographer is constantly researching better ways to capture images of the cosmos, and those images are educational as well as aesthetically pleasing.

I cannot be an amatuer astronomer as I only observe for the beauty of the sky, not for any scientific reasons.

I don't agree, I mostly observe for the beauty of the sky and the awe factor. That alone I reckon qualifies you. You cannot gaze at the night sky and not contemplate what you are looking at. The very act of thinking about what is going on in the universe is doing science. You may not discover anything new but that doesn't mean that you're not doing science. The mere act of recording in a diary what you see every time your out is a big step up in the science direction.

...actually, on reflection, I do know what makes someone an astronomer.

Astronomy is a science.
Therefore, an amatuer astronomer is an amatuer scientist
Thus an astronomer must be actively involved in the science.
Q.E.D.

I cannot be an amatuer astronomer as I only observe for the beauty of the sky, not for any scientific reasons.

I have to agree with John here, in my book you are an amateur astronomer, if you partake in any form of active astronomy, then you re so.
If you get payed for it, that makes you a professional, be you a planetarium co-ordinater or researching gamma rays.