Why isn't Astronomy important?
Chris
today's society. Even in grade schools, they could have an astronomers
workshop where students could be taught the difference between
different types of scopes and possibly make their own scope. The major
problem with todays skies is light pollution. If the media made the
public aware of this problem I'm sure more ppl would use alternative
lighting. Even stores would begin to sell bulbs that would be safer at
night. So much energy is being wasted constantly!, the affect is of
course light pollution. I'm sure ppl don't need as many lights as are
on the expressways, or at airports!. Here in Chicago Mayor Daily and
govenor Ryan both agreed on expanding the Ohare airport runway. Not
only is this going to put ppl out of their homes, but it is also going
to add more light pollution!. Pretty soon noone is going to be able to
see any stars or anything even with the naked eye!. It's the media as
well as news publications that should make the public aware of the
light pollution problem, we can also help, by supporting organizations
like dark skies. If the majority of the amateur astronomers out there
teamed up there is no telling what WE can do.
Dark Skies forever, Chris~
mark d. doiron
news:8146b947.01120...@posting.google.com...
> It really is quite disappointing that astronomy shows
> no promidence in today's society.
Chris--
let me put a slightly different spin on the above comment, because,
except for it, i entirely agree with the rest of your post. i think
that most common folks (non-astronomer types) don't realize how
prevalent astronomy is in their lives. there are obvious things like
the popularity of telescopes as Christmas gifts. but how often have you
seen a tv or magazine ad with an astronomy theme? couple that come to
mind are one where meteors are used to build the company's logo, and the
more obvious Boeing ads that show their achievements in space. then
there are the tv shows that have telescopes decorating a child's room.
and there was an episode of "hey, arnold!" in which not only is everyone
getting out of town to observe a comet (yes, there were factual problems
with the presentation of the comet), but the subject of light pollution
was specifically addressed. and there was an episode of "Malcom in the
middle" in which his geek friends are using an lx-200 to look at the
night sky (at which point Malcom and his brothers bombarded them with
their slingshot catapult!).
and then there's music--just keep on eye on the new age chart (see link
below) at mp3.com. i've seen where as many as 15-20% of the titles are
astronomy related (currently that doesn't seem to be the case). btw:
to deflect the criticism that that's because those folks believe in
astrology, i suggest that you read the artist's comments. in fact, most
of them describe the majesty of the night sky (or, in one case a solar
eclipse) as moving them to write that particular song. mp3.com new age
chart:
http://genres.mp3.com/music/easy_listening/new_age/
then there's art. lots of the art sold at local art stores and
festivals has the sky play a prominent part in the image. this can be a
night desert scene with a full moon (yuk!), or perhaps a day farm scene
with a rainbow. in my house i have a number of prints/paintings that i
did not pick because of their astronomy theme--but there they are. in
one (Ansel Adams "moonrise over half dome")--well, there it is
(purchased at a local print shop). a painting i have is called "fishing
for stars" and shows a Tom Sawyer-like boy fishing into a deep crevasse
of clouds, below which a field of stars can be seen (purchased at
oklahoma city spring arts festival). another is a painting of Earth
showing the great spirit (native American) holding it in his arms with a
field of stars behind him (purchased at Red Earth native American pow
wow). i could go on--i have literally dozens of prints/paintings that i
did not pick because of the astronomy theme--it's just there. my point
isn't really that i have these works of art that have an astronomy
theme; it's that these works of art were readily available at locales
frequented by non-astronomers. they were there because the artist was
moved to make them, and because the visitors at that location were
likely to buy them.
and then there's the bible, which specifically says that the heavens
declare God's glory for all to see. and for a vivid description of
astronomy events, try reading "the revelation" some evening.
so, i don't think that astronomy isn't playing a prominent role in
people's lives. it's that people don't know that it *is* playing such
an important role. which is why i think that one of the most important
things we, as amateur astronomers, can do is to reveal the night sky to
the non-astronomers. and, at the same time, to discuss the impact of
light pollution, and what we're truly losing.
clear, dark skies--
mark d.
Sam Wormley
Jon Isaacs
>workshop where students could be taught the difference between
>different types of scopes and possibly make their own scope.
The San Diego Astronomy Association seems to give several work shops a month to
schools. I don't know what these entail but I am sure that somebody learns
something.
jon isaacs
Lloyd Bentsen
One strategy to pursue might be to emphasize astronomy's impact on society.
The discovery of the third form of carbon (graphite, diamond and, now, C60) owes much to the curiosity that astronomy stirred in the scientists that collaborated on its finding. In fact, it might not have been discovered when it was without the advances in astronomy. As the narrator says in the following interview with the chief scientific players, "The story of discovery and revolution in chemistry begins with astronomy: the death of stars and the birth of planets" (I encourage anyone interested in your topic to read the entire interview...really fascinating):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/molesun.shtml
What may be the potential of such a discovery (Carbon 60), in addition to the key player's winning a Nobel prize?
Think how silicon (as in Silicon Valley) has changed society. Now imagine, if you will, that we have the potential of moving from silicon based science to carbon based science. The buckyball, nanotubes, nanoshells and the birth of nanotechnology may revolutionize: materials, machines, and computational devices.
Specific examples: we have just funded in Houston a company that will be using C60 as a delivery system for therapeutics (both as an attachment as well as a potential shell like lipids) with expectations that there will be clinical trials in the not too distant future; another company, also in Houston, is currently manufacturing nanotubes which show promise for variety new materials (filaments of incredible strengths); and, finally, there is real evidence of producing the most fundamental on/off switches (computing) and rudimentary tools (manufacturing) at the molecular level.
Moving from Silicon Valley to Carbon Valley, we may be on the threshold of a fundamental change in chemistry and physics, as well as the information technology and life sciences industries, thanks to astronomy and the intellectual curiosity it raises in all of us.
I suggest that the next time someone questions the practicality of astronomy you might mention the "molecules with sunglasses" story and the prospects that astronomy may be (just may be) opening a door leading to a whole new frontier for science as well as society.
Thank you for asking something that I often ask myself.
Lloyd Bentsen
amateur astronomer
Chairman
Houston Technology Center
www.houstontech.org
rande...@aol.com
>It really is quite disappointing that astronomy shows no promidence in
>today's society. Even in grade schools, they could have an astronomers
>workshop where students could be taught the difference between
>different types of scopes and possibly make their own scope.
People avoid what confuses them.
The majority should stick to watching
"Survivor" "Friends" "WWF"
and participating in various mind-numbing activities
like bar hopping and sports watching.
-Rich
HAVRILIAK
>today's society
I guess you don't understand the purpose of todays schooling. Its purpose
is political correctness and related topics such as social engineering and
moral relativity. A major problem with Astronomy specifically and science in
general is that much of it is ABSOLUTE and subject to experimental
verification. In otherwords, in science there is no place for for
experimentally unsuported views and opinions.
Al
even know what "WWF" is. However, you should give bar hopping and sports
watching a chance. After all, some of our best people do both. Edward
Kennedy wrote the book on bar hopping (have you read it yet?) and what's a
Sunday without football?
Al
<rande...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3c126edf.74652754@news...
rande...@aol.com
wrote:
>I totally agree with you regarding "Survivor" and "Friends"...and I don't
>even know what "WWF" is. However, you should give bar hopping and sports
>watching a chance. After all, some of our best people do both. Edward
>Kennedy wrote the book on bar hopping (have you read it yet?) and what's a
>Sunday without football?
>
Sorry, can't stand the cigarette smoke.
-Rich
David Smith
Start first at home. I drag my kids out everytime I have clear skies
and the time to find interesting stuff. They are 13 and 15.
Sometimes I even drag my kids friends out, much to the consternation
of my kids. (Dad don't!!!!)
My N8 has a brief info section on each subject that I read with the
kids. I ask them to tell me what they see, and describe what's up
there in their own words. Like me, they grapple with light years and
the notion that the light they see left hundreds to millions of years
ago.
My daughter loves it, my son looks and then returns to the TV in the
house. But both now have a basis and experience they may or may not
return to later in life. This is our second year with the scope and
both remember sights and images from a year ago.
Science will come to these young people, but the motivation to delve
into the science of the heavens must come from within.
Hormones are the main obstacle in their lives now. That fog will
eventually lift and as adults they can build their understanding and
experience with astronomy from those initial experiences with dad.
Then they will become the teachers of others.
David S Smith
Marty
the schools are important too. I think that part of the problem here is
that most teachers, especially at the elementary levels of education,
are primarily humanities majors. Nothing wrong with this, but they
receive very little science education themselves, both as a matter of
the curriculum of their area of study, and it somewhat follows, from
their personal interests.
Maybe we, as parents and taxpayers, need to make our feelings known
here, much as all of those who are so successfully padding our
children's education with political indoctrination. Astronomy is a
wonderfully enriching area of study, and a springboard into all other
sciences.
Marty
Sean Golden
> People avoid what confuses them.
> The majority should stick to watching
> "Survivor" "Friends" "WWF"
> and participating in various mind-numbing activities
> like bar hopping and sports watching.
> -Rich
>
I think you have a point here, but I think it is deeper than that. I grew
up watching sports, Gilligan's Island, the Munsters and a host of other
mindless drivel. But I still managed to keep an active interest in science,
math and other "real" things that have been beneficial to my life.
I don't think that people avoid science because it confuses them. I think
they avoid it because it is socially dangerous to young kids to be seen as
"brainy." Most kids I have met can be teased into curiosity about science,
history, literature, etc. But they are held back by peer pressure more than
anything else. Kids hate to be seen as "brainy" because our culture
presents intelligent people as being socially inept, physically clumsy and
prone to physical ailments. This is nothing new, such attitudes have been
around forever, but the power of television has ingrained that message into
the heads of our youth more than ever before.
If you watch any children's movie or network sitcom, the stars are always
those who struggle to make good grades, and the students who make good
grades are always presented with glasses (usually broken and taped
together), goofy out of style clothes, and an overly heavy book-filled
backpack. Usually a part of the plot involves having one of the popular
kids help one of the brainy kids out by helping to heft their portable
library. The message is that over-exercising your mind results in
neglecting your body. On occasion a brainy kid will become important to the
story line because the popular kids need something figured out, so they
enlist a brainy kid long enough to do so, then go on their way leaving the
brainy kid behind, usually with some final snide remark about how much
better it is to be popular than to be smart.
The message is clear to anyone who pays attention, and believe me kids pay
attention to this stuff. If you demonstrate that you are intelligent and
can master difficult subjects at school, you will become a social pariah.
My daughter has been called a "dork" on more than one occasion because she
spent a night with her dad looking at the stars. She has learned not to
reveal these bizarre acts of intelligence to her classmates.
It is a very powerful message and one that drives most children towards pop
culture as a means of cementing social relationships. There are always
those few who manage to overcome this peer pressure, but they are becoming
fewer and farther between.
The very smartest kids are those who can manage to do well in school but
make it appear to be "by accident." In other words, they study and learn
their material at home and do their best to perform well on tests, but at
school they put on the camoflauge of social normality and exchange stories
about the latest pop cultural icons along with the rest of the group. This
is not easy to do, so most kids don't bother. It is more important to them
to be one of the "in crowd" than to be "smart."
I am a big, big fan of Calvin and Hobbes, the comic strip about a young boy
and his stuffed tiger. But even that strip egged on this notion. Suzie,
the brainy girl in Calvin's class, comes over to stay with Calvin one
afternoon because her mother and father have something they need to do.
Suzie gets out her homework while Calvin looks on. As she begins to do the
homework Calvin says "What are you doing?" She replies "Homework, I have to
get this done before dinner." Calvin replies "So, you get good grades
because you do all that work! Huh, and here I thought you were smart."
Then off he goes, convinced that Suzie is really stupid for wasting her time
on her homework while he and Hobbes engage in yet another fantasy about
space aliens, leaving his homework, yet again, undone.
This is closer to the interaction of children at school than most of us want
to believe.
-sdg
Rick Armstrong
and advertising regretfully snipped in their entirety to save space>
You mention an episode of Hey Arnold that addressed light pollution. I have
also heard of (but not seen myself) a public service announcement from an
organization that promotes family activities showing a parent and kid
looking up at the night sky and explaining that you see more stars when you
get away from city lights.
As to the actual subject line of this thread, I knew an astronomy professor
who explained it quite well. "Astronomy as astronomy is nothing but a self
perpetuating science that only serves itself... EXCEPT for the fact that
astronomy proves laws of physics which govern everything else."
Rick
mark d. doiron
news:otNQ7.14874$714.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
snip
> The message is clear to anyone who pays attention,
> and believe me kids pay attention to this stuff. If
> you demonstrate that you are intelligent and can
> master difficult subjects at school, you will become
> a social pariah.
snip
there's a lot of truth in what you say, but it's not necessarily being
smart/brainy that brands you. rather, it's chosing to do what you want
to do even when the "in" group hasn't selected that. for example, i
work a lot with boy scouts. we have on occasion a boy or two show up
from a football practice to a troop meeting wearing their football
uniforms. i've suggested that perhaps they should wear their boy scout
uniform to football practice next time, so that they can be in the
proper uniform when they arrive at the troop meeting. you should see
the look of horror on their face!
on veteran's day we had our boys in uniform to present the colors at a
school ceremony for the local veterans. one boy asked me if they would
have to do this again in the junior high school (they're 6th graders).
he was embarassed to have presented the U.S. flag to the assembled
veteran's (we're right next to a big air force base) because of his boy
scout uniform! the next week was the school's award program. this boy
also played football and, when the undefeated football team was called
to assemble before the school, every one was in their jersey and there
wasn't an embarassed face among them.
so, it's not being smart that's the problem. it's being branded as
different. too bad. what ever happened to individuality? personally,
this is something i discuss at least several times a week with my son.
i encourage him to be his own person and to not let peer pressure drive
him to anything he doesn't chose to do. not just with choices in drugs,
tobacco and such. but with choices of music, clothes, friends,
everything. and i offer the same encouragement to the boys in the
troop, as well as those i see at the school (where i do some volunteer
work). otherwise, we're going to raise a bunch of kids with the
intelligence of squash whose idea of a good weekend is to suck down two
six packs while watching five footballs games. yuk!
mark d. doiron
news:WsPQ7.40603$Ga5.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
snip
> I have also heard of (but not seen myself) a public
> service announcement from an organization that
> promotes family activities showing a parent and kid
> looking up at the night sky and explaining that you
> see more stars when you get away from city lights.
snip
Rick--
perhaps a different example, but i seem to recall an ad from some
organization promoting recreational vehicle use with this very theme.
Zane
(snip)
>The very smartest kids are those who can manage to do well in school but
>make it appear to be "by accident." In other words, they study and learn
>their material at home and do their best to perform well on tests, but at
>school they put on the camoflauge of social normality and exchange stories
>about the latest pop cultural icons along with the rest of the group. This
>is not easy to do, so most kids don't bother. It is more important to them
>to be one of the "in crowd" than to be "smart."
(snip)
Those are very astute observations, I think. Part of this is the
psychology of teenaged girls. I got my first telescope at age 14 and had
the sense to keep my "dorky" activity private all through high school. The
only people besides my family who knew my deep, dark secret were two other
guys who also had scopes. The "cool" girls wouldn't have understood such
things, and even "steady" girlfriends weren't included just in case.
You could get away with being _otherwise_ "brainy" in high school only if
you also played a couple of varsity sports, as far as the "in-crowd" girls
(usually the prettiest) were concerned.
I doubt that things have changed any.
Zane
P. Edward Murray
Yes, I can tell you that I was probably the only kid at
Bayles Elementary (Dallas..'63-'69) that was interested
in Astronomy and I was pretty different..painfully so, with
a Boston accent to boot. So there is quite a lot one can
say about wanting to "fit in".
Ed
HAVRILIAK
>and the time to find interesting stuff. They are 13 and 15.
In todays environment society calls those kids of yours Nerds. Why do you
think we have to to go to 2nd world countries to get graduate students in
science.
Brian Tung
> The very smartest kids are those who can manage to do well in school but
> make it appear to be "by accident." In other words, they study and learn
> their material at home and do their best to perform well on tests, but at
> school they put on the camoflauge of social normality and exchange stories
> about the latest pop cultural icons along with the rest of the group. This
> is not easy to do, so most kids don't bother. It is more important to them
> to be one of the "in crowd" than to be "smart."
Hmm. I remember, especially in high school, being famous around campus
for being "good at math." (The reputation wasn't entirely undeserved.)
I hung out with other math geeks, too. I participated in math contests,
not without success. I was the school science "ringer." Actually, this
didn't bother me at all. I knew I was a bit odd socially.
I also remember, starting about the 10th grade, making up for this by
being extremely, almost obnoxiously extroverted. After years of being
relatively softspoken, I spent about three years swinging over the other
way.
By about my senior year of college, I had pretty much stabilized. Having
emerged "out the other side," I can certainly sympathize with those who
lack what Isaac Asimov called that "wholesome American stupidity," but
there is a way out, even if it does require one to be a bit proactive and
uncircumspect about things. :)
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
rande...@aol.com
And that mentality will eventually mean the downfall of the United
States. You can't worship ignorance forever and expect to stay
on top.
-Rich
HAVRILIAK
I agree with what you say. Globilization of US corporations means that they
don't have to put up with the stupidity of Educational groups in the US. In
other words their R&D is being done off-shore. Example, IBM software
development is being done in India, Microsoft in Ireland, etc.
BTW there is a very subtle migration of industrial research grants to
Universities from American ones to off-shore ones particularly China. US
corporations are tired of high overhead University costs (30 to 40%) and lazy
american graduate students.
Tony Flanders
> I agree with what you say. Globilization of US corporations means that they
> don't have to put up with the stupidity of Educational groups in the US. In
> other words their R&D is being done off-shore. Example, IBM software
> development is being done in India, Microsoft in Ireland, etc.
Quick reality check. Software development is production, not R+D,
and the reason that it is done in India has everything to do with
lower labor costs and nothing to do with better education. Not
that India's computer education is so terrible, but it doesn't
hold a candle to the U.S. How do I know? From my Indian nephew
who came to study in the U.S.
The U.S. does have serious competitors, but it still stands head
and shoulders above any other country in R+D, by every measure.
I am sure that you need no such reassurance, but other people
would be more receptive to your opinions if they were in
accordance with reality.
- Tony Flanders
Marty
this thread... In his book, "First Light," Richard Preston quotes James
Gunn as saying, "Astronomy isn't terribly important, but it is one of
the more important things we do as a species."
Marty
jerry warner
I saved $150 right off the top on the base price and $70
in shipping & fumbling. viv l' Canada.
Jerry
jerry warner
does stay on top, and not the reverse? You assume the world is
rational.
jw