Carl,
I'll try to answer a few of your questions embedded within your post.
--- On Fri, 10/1/10, cdtuc...@cox.net <cdtuc...@cox.net> wrote:
> Richard, Martin,
> Very good question.
> It seems to me that unless you are getting paid for
> something. You are an amateur?
Well yes and no. I've been rather jaded by working as and with a number of
amateur astronomers in the field of minor planet studies. Some years ago there
was a discussion on the Minor Planet Mailing List on the term 'amateur'. The
discussion stemmed from the often negative connotation of that word and the
fact that many 'amateurs' were and are doing very high level science from their
backyards. Various terms were bandied about and one name that seemed to be used
more often since then has been "unpaid" or "volunteer astronomers". Not very
appealing, but very descriptive. For the most part amateur was and remains the
most popular title, in its original definition, a lover of the science.
Personally I attach the name of amateur scientist, whatever the science, to a
person who does real, publishable & peer-reviewed level science. As David
mentioned, density measurements can be done by any school child, but as far as
I'm concerned, if that school child performs the measurements systematically
and rigorously, in a reproducible form, striving to reduce their errors, then
they deserve the title scientist, even if it is the most simple and basic
research.
In my mind and again this is a personal definition that no one else needs to
follow, if you aren't doing science in some manner, then you really should not
be afforded the title of a scientist, even as an amateur. I see no need in this
definition for any monetary income in any form to be necessary for the title to
be afforded a person. This speaks solely to the person's ability and
performance in the field.
> I'm not sure if Marvin Kilgore gets paid but his name
> appears on a number of publications.
> Dean bessy gets paid.
> Also I seem to see others listed on papers such as Hupe and
> Haag etc.
I can't and won't speak to these specifics other than if the primary author
includes anyone as a coauthor, it is apparent that in some way their efforts,
input or individual results were important to the collaborative research put
forth in the paper. Being mentioned in a research paper is not the same as
being listed as a coauthor.
> Does it take a Ph,d getting paid in that field to be a pro?
> Or would a Ph,d getting paid in geology work as well?
A person with a PhD who is unemployed in not a professional in any field.
A person without a High School diploma who obtains the bulk of their income
from their research efforts is a professional.
> Would a certain VIP working at a scope in the Catalina's
> who discovered 2008 TC3 be a meteoriticist?
> If so, which variety?
Absolutely not.
As I have repeatedly told you in the past when you have asked my opinion on a
number of your found rarities, I am nothing more than a basic meteorite
collector. I in no way study meteorites in a scientific manner and I certainly
do not perform scientific research on them at even the most basic level. I
certainly enjoy my collection and I also enjoy much of the meteorite community,
but I am no meteoriticist, not even an amateur one. I am a meteorite hobbyist
and collector and I'm very happy at that level.
The reason I put this thread forward was partly to open a discussion on the
real science of meteoritics and what areas of research are open to the amateur
scientist by asking those who are already performing this research to tell me
(or all of us) a little more about what their research efforts are.
Cheers
--
Richard Kowalski
Full Moon Photography
IMCA #1081
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
