Nature is a premier magazine of science for scientists, and as such is an unquestionable authority whose authority must not be questioned.
So when they say this blog is among the top 5 science blogs written by science writers, then who am I to argue?
Well, actually, I’m a scientist, so maybe I can argue. I thought it was funny that they listed me as a writer and not a scientist (if they had me as a scientist I’d still be in the top 5, not that I’m preening or anything). Now granted, I haven’t done primary research for about 5 years now, but still. And really, I’ve done far more writing now as a popularist than as a scientist. And…
… hmmm. I may be having an identity crisis. Am I more of a science writer, or scientist? It’s fully correct to say I am no longer a professional scientist, as I am no longer paid to do scientific research. And I do get paid to write, as it happens.
Holy Haleakala! Am I now a writer and not a professional scientist?
I guess it depends on what you mean by professional. For my day job, I write educational activities and related materials about astronomy, but I was hired because I’m an astronomer. So the inevitable conclusion is, I’m both.
It’s funny: I know a lot of amateur astronomers who hate being called amateurs. I can understand it, since in many cases they know far more about operating a telescope than many professional astronomers (like me). But in the end it’s just a label, a handy way of referencing a group. I don’t care much one way or the other… or so I thought until I saw that list on Nature.com! So I guess even though intellectually I have no issues, there’s a reptilian part of my brain telling me I need to be placed into a category. I think that’s pretty interesting.
Now I’ll go sun myself on a rock someplace.
My congrats to PZ Myers at Pharyngula for being top blogger!
July 6th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Write another book, we will edit.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
I can relate, Phil. I had an identity crisis of sorts when I started teaching high school. Though I guess I can still call myself an astronomer because my name just appeared on a paper where I took a lot of data for a bunch of other astronomers 5 years ago.
Just don’t start wearing turtle necks and saying “billions” with a Brooklyn accent.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Anyone who decries the label “amateur” does not understand the word.
To keep it simple, an Amateur is simply one who does [whatever] for the love of doing it. I suppose that also covers many a “Professional” – but the difference is generally assumed to be that a Professional does it for the money. A little license being used there though.
JC – Amateur (very!) astronomer and Amateur radio operator, amongst many other things.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
We all got one book in us, so if you want to call your self a writer, we’d like to see another book.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
But it’s not just books, it’s articles in newspapers, magazines, webzines, and his professional writing for educational purposes. Writers aren’t confined to books.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Woot! go you!
July 6th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Hey BA, congratulations! And thanks for pointing us toward 4 blogs that are better than this one! Just kidding actually. I’m sure next time they’ll realize their mistake and make you number 1. I will have to check out those other blogs though. They must be good.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Hey, congrats! Nicely done.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
JSto! Cool. But you mistyped your initials, I think.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:11 am
Congrats! I note that they call you an “astronomer” and not a “writer” in the actual citation, so perhaps your reptilian brain should be assuaged.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:33 am
Getting paid to do what you like is quite a blessing. There you go.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:20 am
# 2 in the program, #1 in our hearts
July 7th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Congratulations BA. Couldn’t go to a more deserving person (and blog).
Also, being a writer who has first hand experience isn’t a bad thing. Anyone who not only has the experience, but also the ability to explain what they learned is very talented. I’ve been working in my career for 15 years (Wow… It doesn’t seem that long), and it’d be very difficult for me to explain what I do. So, consider yourself lucky to be talented in both fields.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:14 am
It comes as no surprise to me as this is one of my favorite sites. So much to learn and so little time.
July 7th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Hmmm, sun on rock,,,good for endothermic critter,,,
Unfortunately, mammels are exothermic so hot rocks are just HOT!HOT!HOT!
However, your site is too!!! It’s also Cool! Does that sound like a contradiction?
Such be the vagaries of language.
People passionate about what they do, be they amatuer or professional, are just fun to know. Maybe some day your name will be as ubiquitous in the media as CArl Sagans. Then you can start some really hot discussions about reason vs magic, etc. Might even get the entire US population arguing about it.
Go fer it,,,
GAry 7
July 7th, 2006 at 8:15 am
We…the rest of the world…congratulate you!!! May you bust more bad astronomy in the years to come…You are a science writer…which i suppose should be the same as a writer who knows science and not a scientist who write’s?
July 7th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Write; Writer; Writest!
Congratulations.
Ivan.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Once a scientist, always a scientist. They cannot take that away from you. They can disbar a lawyer, fire a teacher, or revoke a physician’s licence, but how do you turn a scientist into a non-scientist? Who says that all a scientist can do is research?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:46 am
OH, BTW, your blogroll still points to my old site…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
coturnix, thanks for letting me know. I fixed it. I need to go through it and make sure all the links are current!
July 7th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
There’s a well-known saying that the best way to ruin a hobby you love is to get paid to do it. So I’m all for amateur astronomy. Besides, if I’m not mistaken, most professional astronomers don’t actually get out and look at the stars through a telescope much.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
coturnix,
Just like a priest, eh? Cant’ get disbarred.
Slightly OT:
Big Bang Hoax
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/huascar.htm
Are those proportions right?
http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm
July 9th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
But priests can be defrocked!
July 9th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
True, but a defrocked priest is still a priest, unlike a disbarred lawyer.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:02 am
A defrocked priest is still a priest? I thought that was the whole point of defrocking – the church saying “We don’t accept you no more.”
Well then, excommunicate the b-tard and then he can’t even go to church.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Yeah, but an excommunicated priest is still a priest. It can’t be revoked.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Hey, its not the end of the world or anything (well actually it is- I saw your bit on the show about that topic the other day when it was repeated. Nice surprise!).
Jess Tauber
July 10th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Nature on Science Blogs…
Journal Nature has published a short article about science blogging. You do not need a subscription to read it – you can find it here. In it, they highlight Top 5 science blogs according to Technorati rankings. Those five are,……
July 12th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Guess it depends on the denomination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defrocking
July 12th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
A disbarred galaxy is still a galaxy. Was John Glenn a retired astronaut until his shuttle mission? The NASA definition had something to do with 100 km altitude. I don’t recall that it had to be recently.