Untitled Document

01 August 2003

E-Bulletin Backscatter

More Conference Kudos

Dear Shawn, Sheldon and Nancy:

After the Citizen Science Conference, I drove to White Sands, New Mexico, to spend several days calibrating Sun photometers and infrared hygrometers. I was also fortunate enough to find a perfect place to intercept and photograph three dust devils that arrived in sequence one afternoon.

All this was great fun, but it came nowhere near the excitement of attending the Citizen Science Conference.

I can still see and hear David Levy as he delivered what will be long remembered as an astonishingly inspirational talk on one man's long journey through the world of amateur astronomy. David's comet discoveries are now facts in astronomy and history books. David's personal account of those discoveries is much more. He brought tears to the eyes of at least two people at my table.

And what a treat to actually meet and hear Dr. Paul MacCready, the Father of Human-Powered Flight! I still can't believe I actually did! Nor can I believe that Dr. MacCready actually attended all the talks at the meeting. What an amazing vote of confidence in support of amateur science.

Michael Shermer's talk about Alfred Wallace, that most amazing amateur scientist of another era, was a real treat. So was Arielle Eckstut's lecture on how to interest a book agent in one's amateur science pursuits.

And I haven't even mentioned all those wonderful science talks.

Thanks so much Shawn, Sheldon and Nancy for your many hard hours organizing and leading this conference. You are doing exactly what some of us only dreamed about a decade ago. Somehow we must properly publicize what you are doing so that many more amateur scientists will attend next year's event.

Best regards,

Forrest

Forrest M. Mims III

Shawn, Sheldon, and Nancy,

Thank you all for your efforts to make this conference great and for the opportunity for me to share my love of science education with all of these professional-grade amateur scientists.

With some luck, I hope to be at next year's conference and able to renew acquaintances.

Harry Keller

What Maketh an Amateur?

Dear Sheldon,

Because I did not attend the second annual citizen science conference, I read with interest your description of conference highlights. As I did so, it occurred to me that many of the people you describe as having done great work as citizen scientists are not really amateurs at all: Paul MacCready is of course a professional with a PhD, Forrest Mims has had some of his work funded by NASA as well as his published electronic notebooks, John Lighton works for (owns?) Sable Systems International, David H. Levy, although once a pure amateur, has now authored 29 books and received two honorary DSc degrees, et cetera. I realize it is difficult to draw a line in the sand with amateurs on one side and professionals on the other. I myself have sometimes strayed looking for projects that might be "justified" because of a relationship to my professional career or because of the possibility of some financial gain. Still, if we are to hold up certain people as ideals, I would hope that some form of this distinction will be made and that a place kept within our society where "true" amateurs can be recognized and honored.

Peter Baum

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your letter. You raise some interesting points. There is a persistent concept about "amateurs" in all fields that draws a false dichotomy between them and "professionals", namely that amateurs are not paid (at least not very much) or credentialled. If I may put on my linguist's hat for a moment, the word "amateur" ultimately comes from the Latin verb "amo" which means, "to love". It is related to the French "amour" and our word "amorous". Essentially, an "amateur" is someone who does something for the love of it. Linguistically the word carries no dennotation or connotation about being paid.

This can complicate things a bit. If you assume (as most people do) that "professional" is the opposite of "amateur", it implies that professionals don't like their work, which is obviously nonsense. And if they really do love their work, then are they also "amateurs"? However, if you see someone doing something without the benefit of compensation, then you must conclude that they are doing it for love. So perhaps that is part of the problem. Another part is that "amateur" also carries the unfortunate connotation of ineptitude.

My hunch is that the confusion between "amateur" and "professional" got a big boost during the revival of the Olympic Games. The idealism behind that effort argued that ancient olympic athletes were unpaid "amateurs" who ran, jumped, or whatever, for the love of the sport and shunned professional help. In fact, this was not true; ancient olympic athletes used professional trainers as they do today, and an athlete who brought top honors to his city usually received a very generous stipend for the rest of his life.

But I degress. Maybe the lesson to be drawn from this confusing dichotomy is that what really matters is a passion for science. Those professionals who have it and cherish it don't balk at working with others who share that passion, even if they don't have a degree. And ordinary folks who are driven to understand the universe will not hesitate to enter fields some professionals might claim as their exclusive turf. David Levy's talk was a paean to the passionate scientific mind and, in the fire of that moment, all who heard it were amateurs in the purest sense.

Thank you again for your note. I hope it will generate additional discussion among our members.

Best wishes,

Sheldon