[meteorite-list] Amateur Meteoriticists?

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 03:40:58 +0200
Message-ID: <009701cb629c$074d2e70$15e78b50$_at_de>

Hi Carl & Richard,

no Carl, that hasn't to do with money.

I understood Richard's question in that way, whether or to which degree
amateurs would contribute to meteorite science.

And there I said, they're bringing the stones, the asteroid belt, Moon &
Mars to the labs, where the research on the stones will be done then.
(hence the usual division of labour of the last 2 centuries).

I know, that some of these, organizing the stones, do have studied and
degrees in geology,
but they like rather to be addressed as meteorite-hunters.

Also I wouldn't suppose, that these, who are doing the field work or are
trying to nail down a fireball,
hence doing lege artis something overlapping with the work of scientists,
have a self-concept of being scientists.

Hence if we look into the Bulletins, then we see, that this form of
contribution is very important.

Best!
Martin



-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Richard Kowalski [mailto:damoclid at yahoo.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Oktober 2010 03:09
An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; Martin Altmann; cdtucson at cox.net
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Amateur Meteoriticists?

Carl,

I'll try to answer a few of your questions embedded within your post.




--- On Fri, 10/1/10, cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson at cox.net> wrote:

> Richard, Martin,
> Very good question.
> It seems to me that unless you are getting paid for
> something. You are an amateur?

Well yes and no. I've been rather jaded by working as and with a number of
amateur astronomers in the field of minor planet studies. Some years ago
there was a discussion on the Minor Planet Mailing List on the term
'amateur'. The discussion stemmed from the often negative connotation of
that word and the fact that many 'amateurs' were and are doing very high
level science from their backyards. Various terms were bandied about and one
name that seemed to be used more often since then has been "unpaid" or
"volunteer astronomers". Not very appealing, but very descriptive. For the
most part amateur was and remains the most popular title, in its original
definition, a lover of the science.

Personally I attach the name of amateur scientist, whatever the science, to
a person who does real, publishable & peer-reviewed level science. As David
mentioned, density measurements can be done by any school child, but as far
as I'm concerned, if that school child performs the measurements
systematically and rigorously, in a reproducible form, striving to reduce
their errors, then they deserve the title scientist, even if it is the most
simple and basic research.

In my mind and again this is a personal definition that no one else needs to
follow, if you aren't doing science in some manner, then you really should
not be afforded the title of a scientist, even as an amateur. I see no need
in this definition for any monetary income in any form to be necessary for
the title to be afforded a person. This speaks solely to the person's
ability and performance in the field.


> I'm not sure if Marvin Kilgore gets paid but his name
> appears on a number of publications.
> Dean bessy gets paid.
> Also I seem to see others listed on papers such as Hupe and
> Haag etc.

I can't and won't speak to these specifics other than if the primary author
includes anyone as a coauthor, it is apparent that in some way their
efforts, input or individual results were important to the collaborative
research put forth in the paper. Being mentioned in a research paper is not
the same as being listed as a coauthor.


> Does it take a Ph,d getting paid in that field to be a pro?
> Or would a Ph,d getting paid in geology work as well?

A person with a PhD who is unemployed in not a professional in any field.
A person without a High School diploma who obtains the bulk of their income
from their research efforts is a professional.


> Would a certain VIP working at a scope in the Catalina's
> who discovered 2008 TC3 be a? meteoriticist?
> If so, which variety?

Absolutely not.
As I have repeatedly told you in the past when you have asked my opinion on
a number of your found rarities, I am nothing more than a basic meteorite
collector. I in no way study meteorites in a scientific manner and I
certainly do not perform scientific research on them at even the most basic
level. I certainly enjoy my collection and I also enjoy much of the
meteorite community, but I am no meteoriticist, not even an amateur one. I
am a meteorite hobbyist and collector and I'm very happy at that level.

The reason I put this thread forward was partly to open a discussion on the
real science of meteoritics and what areas of research are open to the
amateur scientist by asking those who are already performing this research
to tell me (or all of us) a little more about what their research efforts
are.

Cheers

--
Richard Kowalski
Full Moon Photography
IMCA #1081
      

Received on Sat 02 Oct 2010 09:40:58 PM PDT