[meteorite-list] Amateur Meteoriticists?

From: Richard Kowalski <damoclid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 20:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <222909.7806.qm_at_web113618.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

HI Martin.

I wanted to add that on the whole I do not consider meteorite hunters "meteoriticists".


Now I want to be PERFECTLY CLEAR by what I mean here. I know that the field of meteoritics heavily depends on meteorite hunters, both professional and part-time, to find and bring in material for study, but as far as I know, in most cases they are not doing the actual research of this material. Now to qualify that statement. Photographing and recording the position of a new find is important, but that isn't necessarily "science" or make the data point recorder a meteoriticist.

Additional questions that need to be answered to raise the quality of this data can be what map datum was used to determine the position? What was the accuracy of this data point? How many other measurements of this location were determined and what were those accuracies? Is the reported position a single position, an average or a mean of all the measured locations?

Was the find made as part of a "random walk" or was the strewn field gridded? What was the length of each of the axes of the grid? How large an area was covered beyond the finds so as to determine the size of the strewnfield?

In my opinion these are just a few of the requirements that would help raise the level of a meteorite hunter to a "field meteoriticist". I know of several hunters that do hunt regions with some scientific rigor with a greater interest in the data they are obtaining that what they could potentially sell their finds for.

I am certainly NOT denigrating hunting for fun or profit. I only want to point out that just because you make a single measure of a find's location while gridding a strewnfield, and your data may in fact be very useful to the science, that does not necessarily raise your efforts to that of a meteoriticist.

Cheers

--
Richard
--- On Sat, 10/2/10, Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
> From: Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amateur Meteoriticists?
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010, 6:40 PM
> 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
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
      

Received on Sat 02 Oct 2010 11:05:12 PM PDT