There was an interesting exchange in comments to a recent BABlog entry dealing with the differences and relationship between amateur and professional astronomers. I suspect this discussion has longer legs than the blog comments are going to be read for, so I'm introducing the discussion here.

I'm a professional astronomer, employed at research and academic institutions for the last 25 years. I'm an IAU member (put those weapons away - I wasn't at Prague...) Plenty of research papers, a couple of books, some translations, public outreach publications... Used likewise lots of telescopes, spanning the energy range from the VLA to Chandra. So much for credentials.

I'm an amateur astronomer, going back to about age 10. I mowed yards for a summer while in junior high school to buy a secondhand 6-inch Criterion reflector, and still own 5- and 10-inch telescopes which get taken onto the back deck when I feel the need of a fix of firsthand photons (the deck we had extended for a better selection of sight lines between the trees). I started in astronomy drawn by the esthetic attraction of the Universe, and was somewhat puzzled to get to grad school and learn how many classmates were interested in astrophysics as a way to test physics on a grand scale. I kept thinking, "how can they possibly be very passionate about that?" My point is that I feel qualified to peek on both sides of the curtain.

Some of the blog comments seemed to respond to a much more pejorative connotation of "amateur" than I grew up hearing from professional astronomers. Of course, as a precise description of status, there is no particular reason it should be, except that certain things are much more likely to be done by one and the other - plus that special need to establish one's seriousness if writing a research report out of the blue... I will admit that, 20 years ago, I did use the term "armchair amateur" in a pejorative sense, to mean the folks who liked to flip idly through the latest issue of "Astronomy" and speculate wildly about cosmic matters. However, I have publicly withdrawn that connotation, in a world in which Eric Flesch in New Zealand beat a couple of professional teams to (at least public release of) a list of quasar candidates from careful cross-matching of optical, X-ray and radio catalogs; in which amateurs around the world have found hundreds of comets from quick examination of public SOHO images; and in which we see STScI and ESA proudly releasing HST images processed by members of the public.

I do see some real differences in the respective cultures:

A degree does suggest a certain completeness of preparation in the field at that time. This means one is less likely to be unaware of relevant issues (or at least need not constantly prove such an awareness). This fact reflects the extent to which the field is maturing - when a field is new, there are no such things as canned experts! This shows which areas of astronomy have been ripe for contributions by, for example, physicists following new instrumental opportunities. This was most effective when nobody else knew much background either (unlike, say, stellar spectroscopy, in which there is an enormous body of lore to master)..

Amateurs are not bound to productivity goals.They are free to follow what they find interesting or rewarding (and in fact I see no reason an amateur should do otherwise). If this is something with a low probability of payoff, or requiring a long-term time investment, no problem. For most professionals, if they want to put much of their time into something with a low likelihood of success, or in an area completely unsupported by funding institutions, that's a real problem. (Interested folks may see quite trenchant comments on astronomical funding in Rob Knop's blog Galactic Interactions).

Professionals may spend a great deal of time on nonastronomical tasks.Grant writing, academic advising, departmental committees collecting syllabus snippets for accreditation, financial reports, EPA audit paperwork on darkroom chemicals, writing documentation, all with deadlines caring not for one's research productivity. You don't do this kind of stuff without being paid for it.

Processing images for display is not something many professionals outside of EPO have any experience with (and it feels sort of odd after all those years of trying never to introduce artifacts in processing). One of these days I'll do the Palomar challenge, putting some 200-inch CCD mosaic data on an ftp site and inviting interested parties to make their best color image of them. All I first have to do is fight the mosaic stitching IRAF routines to make geometrically matching single frames from each filter... Just look at a typical week's APOD links to see the level many amateurs have reached. Professionals generally balk at buying Photoshop, although I'm told the GIMP is effective on their usual Linux platforms.

Amateurs have a huge range of expertise. Some are awesomely competent at running the telescope and imaging, but have very sketchy notions of the celestial layout behind them. Others can converse with professionals on their own terms, having become familiar with arcana of celestial mechanics and asteroid orbital perturbations.

Amateurs have taught the rest of us a great deal about automating everything from observations to remote operation to reduction. If it's not your "job", you don't have nearly as much patience with tedious grunt work (I seem to have too much).

Amateurs tend to be much pickier about their collimation and optical quality, probably because they use the same equipment more often than most professionals manage to use anything. Plus if it's their gizmo, nobody's hand get slapped for making an adjustment.

Amateur astronomy is foremost about a love of the sky. Research need not enter into it. However, many amateurs are interested in getting involved in research. Off the top of my head, I came up with a seriously long PowerPoint list of things that are within reach of a lot of amateurs.

Let the conversation ensue! But for me at the moment - it's a clear night, even if it's still 90 F outside. The stars are calling.

Very nice post and PP presentation. The mutual respect all hold for the majestic heavens is a powerful common denominator. As a true rookie and amateur joining this forum a few years ago, I have benefited greatly from the knowledge and encouragement of both the profesional and non-professional. There are a number of amateurs here that you can bet your boots are right on the money regarding what they say. They seem to have the same spirit of dedication that degreed individuals exhibit, yet are limited by work or other life circumstances. Respect is earned, and some amateurs can stand tall on their merits.

No doubt, there are many levels of expertise for both the professional and amateur. No one person can know it all. Yet, there is a place for each level, especially here at BAUT. Those who have been kind enough to put time into educating amateurs like myself have made astronomy so much more rewarding. Hopefully, the teacher grows stronger, too. If not, life is still about people and encouraging one another is added incentive to continue carrying the torch.

Amateurs also are very active in promoting astronomy. Recently I was able to join the local club's Girl Scout event where about 150 or more kids, some boys, were amazed by the club's presentation. Who knows what spark will have been triggered in their young hearts and minds by these fellow amateurs. These kids are quite intelligent, too. When they were asked how fast light travels, one quickly answered that "it travels at the speed of light"!

On the more professional level for an amateur, I vaguely recall a story from the BA that surface features on a Galilean satellite, Ganymede I think, was observable by an amateur in the Phillipines(?). I also want to say that NASA planned to fund him for future monitoring. This story, however, I could not find in the BA's blog.

Somewhere in between these two amateur levles, I suppose, comes heliochromology. [It seems to be missing in your Power Point Presentation.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I'm with you on all of that: I'm an amateur astronomer at heart, but currently in grad school to try and become a professional.

I'll drool over the latest telescopes from Stellarvue and Takahashi, I convinced our department to order some Pentax XW eyepieces with some end-of-year money (and let me tell you, they are *sweet*), and I'm learning how to reduce spectra, and compute bolometric luminosities for galaxies and quasars. I always assumed the amateur moniker was for those who did something for the fun of it, but did not imply anything about their ability.

I certainly see no insult implied in calling someone an amateur astronomer, it just means they enjoy doing it. Heck, I'm also an amateur cyclist. I won't be riding in le Tour, but I like going fast... I suppose I'm also an amateur video game player as well: I'm not exactly good at it, but it is fun.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

I enjoy it too. I use "amateur" to refer to those who aren't paid to do it.

Good point. I guess (as with everything else) it's a bit of both.

Heck, I'm certainly not getting paid much!

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

ngc3314, thank you for posting that presentation, was very interesting. Now, if I only had the time to dedicate to some relevant research! And a few $$ for some additional equipment. A good CCD imager, spectragroph, some image management software.... (sighs, returns to RFP response).