Comments on: Public perception of astronomers

By: Markle

Markle — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:53:23 +0000

@T_U_T Your assertions remind me of the sophomoric notions of one who has just been introduced to The Calculus. Faith and bluster, little reason. You might as well be claiming that you KNOW how to disprove (or prove) the existence of God (or any other Prime Mover, for that matter). A wise man knows what he doesn’t know and what you don’t seem to realize is that things are not quite as deterministic as they may seem at the macroscopic scale.

@71 Jesse You’re mimicking a denier/hoaxer line of argument. (almost said reasoning)

By: T_U_T

T_U_T — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:34:41 +0000

that is crazy. I have no clue you are talking about. I never said I RIGHT NOW know mathematical description of the “I see a white circle” experience.
You first said that “It isn’t really, hower, until it’s been done in fact.” meaning that all things are to be considered impossible until they are actually done.

And now you deny that you implied that ‘we don’t know’ implies ‘it can not be known’.

And you even call me desperate to save face. classic case of projection

By: Jesse

Jesse — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:34:11 +0000

I think it’s important for astronomers to keep in mind some things about reporting “facts” about findings around the universe.

I listen to astronomy podcasts, read articles quite a bit. Astronomers have an awfully bad habit of taking the attitude of “What I know about a star system 100 million light-years away is fact, and 100% correct”. I’m sure transitions, doppler effects, gravity bent star-light are all useful explorational tools to find POTENTIAL exoplanets. They aren’t by any means always correct, always accurate – but they often are portrayed as the end all be all to finding exoplanets.

The bottom line is (fair or not) – the public sees astronomers arguing over whether or not Pluto is a planet this week or not. If they think astronomers don’t really have a handle on our solar system – how in the world can they believe anything they say about a system eleventy billion miles away?

Things need to be reported and explained differently. The words “potentially” and “possible” need to be used much more than “confirmed” and “fact”.

By: T.E.L.

T.E.L. — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:22:20 +0000

T_U_T Said:

“T.E.L. And again. You behave as if ‘we don’t know’ implied ‘it can not be known’.”

You are astoundingly wrong. I never said that. I said exactly the opposite of that in my last post.

You’ll make a lot more progress with people when you give up being so desperate just to save face.

By: Pieter Kok

Pieter Kok — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:52:01 +0000

This may already have been mentioned, I did not have the time to read the comments:
Doesn’t the fact that the public perception of astronomers ranges from bore to hero indicate that astronomers are in fact not pigeon-holed, generally speaking, in society? I think you have it easy, compared to physicists and computer scientists.

By: Stone Age Scientist

Stone Age Scientist — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:25:45 +0000

Were Walt Whitman with us today, he would most certainly make a public apology to Dr. Plait, seeing as how astronomers can also have stellar charisma and cuteness; not at all like the bewhiskered geezer (PZ Myers) who was giving the science lecture in When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer. ( :D Hahahaha...) Quick, Mrs. BA!! Barf bag for Phil!!! Just teasing, Phil. And, apologies to Prof. Myers.

Thanks to Sarah Nicole Phillips for this (Flickr Creative Commons License) image

Reading through the most recent comments on this thread, I get the feeling that what Walt Whitman feared has somehow materialised. This fear being, that LIFE eventually becomes a series of equations and a set of diagrams and charts. This much can be said, though: in the context of your article, Whitman did lack the appreciation for the underlying scientific principles that govern all the things that we see with our pair of eyes. (Or did he? Remember that he once was a teacher and therefore should know the good that Science brings to Mankind.) The poem painted science in an unfavorable light. And of course, Whitman was privy to this and the effects it would bring to society. However, we mustn't forget, too, that there are many ways in which LIFE can be seen (as echoed by Whitman's poem). Being scientifically pedantic is one of these, and so is being romantic.

By: T_U_T

T_U_T — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:17:02 +0000

T.E.L. And again. You behave as if ‘we don’t know’ implied ‘it can not be known’.