www.astrocafe.hk

You are primarily an observer.

Yes. I don't see the universe chiefly as a huge heap of raw data waiting to be fed into a computer. Collecting factual data is fine. I do it too. But the heart and core of astronomy, to me, is the direct experience of the universe. All the factual information in the world is no substitute for that.

Such a statement brands you as an amateur, some would say. And a romantic as well.

Yes, I wouldn't argue that. By professional standards, I am not much of a scientist. On the other hand, I would say flatly it is a serious error to present astronomy to the public strictly as a science.

Since the average man is not a scientist, and has only a limited understanding of science, his first response is to be turned off by that approach. All that kind of stuff can be left to the professor, he will say; he doesn't have to bother his head about it.

A century ago, Emerson lamented that a man in the street does not know a star in the sky. He could still be lamenting today. When everything becomes Big Science, what is there left for the average man? How many Americans would bother to visit Yosemite or the Grand Canyon if these things were presented to the public strictly as geological phenomena, and therefore of interest only to professional geologists? Astronomy should be presented primarily as exploration, adventure, and discovery. The scientific aspects can come later.

Astronomy should be presented primarily as exploration, adventure, and discovery. The scientific aspects can come later.

黑天鵝 寫:http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/robert_burnham_j.php

mwtse 寫:I would like to quote the following...

社長 寫:這亦是過去二三十年來香港普及天文的誤區，太多人抬出太多科學數據或大理論，結果嚇怕或悶倒了不少入門者。

黑天鵝 寫:I am just an ordinary man, I am not interested in pure theory, nor arguing with those "gifted" or those with mental illness.

黑天鵝 寫:從前，有一位同好說了類似的說話。結果，他死了。

黑天鵝 寫:對了，社長你對「格鏡」有甚麼看法? 對較早時候的天文圖片展有甚麼看法?

社長 寫:實力就是尊嚴，鈔票就是最真的選票，當我每年有萬多人次參與收費天文活動時，我對此事有一定的話語權。

You're talking about that anti-egghead tradition again.

Yes. The important thing in the modern world is to "get ahead." Which boils down almost exclusively to "making money." So we are all hypnotized by the great ideal of "making money." And being turned into a herd of infantilized compulsive consumers in the process, as Theodore Roszak put it. We have a society where everything from erotica to the White House is for sale; where there are no values except commercial values; where everything from bubble gum up to presidential candidates must be packaged, wrapped up, promoted, plugged, advertised, and sold to the public like bars of soap. All the huge rewards go to the wheeler-dealer who finds something lucrative to exploit, and exploits it to the limit. Never mind if it's something trivial or silly like the pet-rock craze, or pure loony-bin schlock like horoscopes for dogs, or even something clearly harmful, like tobacco. As long as the stuff sells you're making the money, and you're a valuable member of society. You're keeping the economy going.

You wouldn't mind being a "success" like that, though, would you?

Probably not. But if this is really "survival of the fittest," the whole concept seems to have been turned upside-down. Under such a set-up it is usually the third-rate trash which stands the best chance of surviving. Genuinely worthwhile things stand a good chance of being weeded out. Who wants to promote a significant new symphony when you can make a thousand times more money on something like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? The entire life income of Beethoven would not pay the royalties on Mairzy Doats. By modern commercial standards, such people as Poe and Melville and Van Gogh were total failures. While some current grade B-minus hack-work brings in the money by the ton. Well, the businessman has no choice. He has to produce for the mass market because that's where the money is. So the rewards offered in our society for something like the Celestial Handbook are virtually zilch...

社長 寫:論小鏡性能，我們也有客觀的測試聚會，出動的鏡也不少

mwtse 寫:I would like to quote the following:

mwtse 寫:

社長 寫:實力就是尊嚴，鈔票就是最真的選票，當我每年有萬多人次參與收費天文活動時，我對此事有一定的話語權。

Robert Burnham 對以經濟上的成功去衡量「對與錯」有一套見解，不過散落在不同的地方，以下一段並不完整，但約略能反映 Burnham 的想法。抱歉還未能充份消化形成完整的想法，所以先引一段說話。

Under such a set-up it is usually the third-rate trash which stands the best chance of surviving. Genuinely worthwhile things stand a good chance of being weeded out.

such people as Poe and Melville and Van Gogh were total failures. While some current grade B-minus hack-work brings in the money by the ton.

David 寫:

社長 寫:論小鏡性能，我們也有客觀的測試聚會，出動的鏡也不少

我個人都擁有過一些很多人認為應該是很好的鏡，格鏡的好處是幫自己分清楚那些是事實，那些只是人云亦云的神話。