The aging of the amateur

There are lots of naysayers in this thread, and it's a little
saddening. I don't think the outlook is bleak, and I'm 33 -- started
observing at 27.

I have a cluster of friends my age who are also observers, but we
rarely gather to observe (twice a year, maybe?). We're all too busy
with family and work to schedule anything in advance at night. But we
are all still observing and buying equipment. We're out there, you
older star-party types just never see us.

So it's possible that the hobby is just becoming less social for the
younger observers. I know it has for me. When we get to a dinner party
together, my friends and I don't stop talking about glass and clouds of
gas.

Just a thought,

Mike

On 8 Nov 2004 13:04:18 -0800, Mike wrote:

There are lots of naysayers in this thread, and it's a little
saddening. I don't think the outlook is bleak, and I'm 33


I hate to be the one to break this to you, but sorry, you're over-the-hill
too. Don't believe it? Just ask any 18 year old ;o)




--
Martin
"Photographs From the Universe of Amateur Astronomy"
http://home.earthlink.net/~martinhowell

sigh

Yeah, I know. But I can still outrun most of them on a bike, so it
doesn't feel so much that way...
-Mike

(now leave me alone so I can go ice my knees)

"Mike" wrote in message
oups.com...
There are lots of naysayers in this thread, and it's a little
saddening. I don't think the outlook is bleak, and I'm 33 -- started
observing at 27.

I have a cluster of friends my age who are also observers, but we
rarely gather to observe (twice a year, maybe?). We're all too busy
with family and work to schedule anything in advance at night. But we
are all still observing and buying equipment. We're out there, you
older star-party types just never see us.

So it's possible that the hobby is just becoming less social for the
younger observers. I know it has for me. When we get to a dinner party
together, my friends and I don't stop talking about glass and clouds of
gas.

Just a thought,

Count me among that number (although I'm not exactly young in age, but
rather a late bloomer). I'm here (saa), I'm out in the backyard, and rarely
at a star party. I have two young kids, one finshing up high-school, and a
wife who works weekends. No time for social astronomy outside the online
community. Hell, just about the only amateur astronomer that I ever see in
person lives less than 10 miles away, and I have a tough time getting over
there. It is definitely the responsibilities of marriage and children that
keep me from getting out.

I'm saving all that social stuff up for retirement, and learning as I go. I
think your point is very valid. When I'm 60-ish, I hope to be more laid
back, more visible and more available in person. Heck, maybe sooner if I can
get my kids interested in staying up late with a bunch of old farts who are
fascinated with the night sky.

Stephen Paul
Shirley, MA

Stephen Paul wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
oups.com...
There are lots of naysayers in this thread, and it's a little
saddening. I don't think the outlook is bleak, and I'm 33 -- started
observing at 27.

I have a cluster of friends my age who are also observers, but we
rarely gather to observe (twice a year, maybe?). We're all too busy
with family and work to schedule anything in advance at night. But we
are all still observing and buying equipment. We're out there, you
older star-party types just never see us.

So it's possible that the hobby is just becoming less social for the
younger observers. I know it has for me. When we get to a dinner party
together, my friends and I don't stop talking about glass and clouds of
gas.

Just a thought,

Count me among that number (although I'm not exactly young in age, but
rather a late bloomer). I'm here (saa), I'm out in the backyard, and rarely
at a star party. I have two young kids, one finshing up high-school, and a
wife who works weekends. No time for social astronomy outside the online
community. Hell, just about the only amateur astronomer that I ever see in
person lives less than 10 miles away, and I have a tough time getting over
there. It is definitely the responsibilities of marriage and children that
keep me from getting out.

I'm saving all that social stuff up for retirement,

no, dont save it. you never know whats around the corner. Life is short
especially these days.

and learning as I go. I
think your point is very valid. When I'm 60-ish, I hope to be more laid
back, more visible and more available in person. Heck, maybe sooner if I can
get my kids interested in staying up late with a bunch of old farts who are
fascinated with the night sky.

By all means start your kids early. Make it a joint endeavor - spending time
with your kids always pays off, especially for them.
Good luck -
Jerry






Stephen Paul
Shirley, MA

"moT" wrote in message
news:5Tujd.114743$df2.44842@edtnps89...
To bad many miserable old *******s can't part with the past.

Too bad a few young *******s are so nasty.

In article ,
Bob Schmall wrote:

[snip]

...not to mention the decline in science education. One example, recent: a
town in Wisconsin, my home state, I'm embarassed to say, has just decided
that "alternates" to evolution can be taught in its public schools.
According to the newspaper article, it is the only community in the United
States that allows the teaching of other theories.

Well, teaching other things. They're not theories by any description
that a scientist would recognize.

Their pride of place is rather tenuous. The York school district
(Pennsylvania) earlier passed a similar measure. The state of Ohio
somewhat earlier than that passed a measure somewhat (but not much)
narrower.

If it were a matter of teaching all contenders subject to the
same challenges as are normal in science, this would be a possibly
good thing. But, if one pursues the details, what's been authorized
is more a matter of 'teaching' a list of unfounded (scientifically)
attacks on biology.

For more on just how much company Wisconsin has in this, and
what's really in the measures, see the National Center for Science
Education -- http://www.natcenscied.org/ and perhaps www.ncse.org.
(The former I'm certain of. The latter may be the newer address.)

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

"Robert Grumbine" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob Schmall wrote:

[snip]

...not to mention the decline in science education. One example, recent: a
town in Wisconsin, my home state, I'm embarassed to say, has just decided
that "alternates" to evolution can be taught in its public schools.
According to the newspaper article, it is the only community in the United
States that allows the teaching of other theories.

Well, teaching other things. They're not theories by any description
that a scientist would recognize.

Their pride of place is rather tenuous. The York school district
(Pennsylvania) earlier passed a similar measure. The state of Ohio
somewhat earlier than that passed a measure somewhat (but not much)
narrower.

My understanding is that both of these measures were finally shot down. In
Wisconsin the state cannot dictate local curricula so the Grantsburg
decision will stand until an enlightened school board rescinds it.

If it were a matter of teaching all contenders subject to the
same challenges as are normal in science, this would be a possibly
good thing. But, if one pursues the details, what's been authorized
is more a matter of 'teaching' a list of unfounded (scientifically)
attacks on biology.

Of course.

Bob

"moT" wrote in message
news:6cbjd.68149$E93.9970@clgrps12...

They are. take a look at the story that begins on p. 82 of the
September
2000 S&T. Between 1979 and 1998 the U.S. median age went from 30 to 32
years while the S&T subscriber median age went from 35 to 48. The
story
offers plausible explanations. I think it has everything to do with
proximity to a dark sky, and countless other urban and suburban
distractions offered to Generation X-and Y-ers.

Tom

...not to mention the decline in science education. One example, recent:
a
town in Wisconsin, my home state, I'm embarassed to say, has just decided
that "alternates" to evolution can be taught in its public schools.
According to the newspaper article, it is the only community in the
United
States that allows the teaching of other theories.

Well that's okay if it is theory but a bible thumpin' EXPLANATION of
everything
is not a theory.

Also, the older demographic has a penchant for picking up where they left
off
in the 60's and '70's.

An indefensible generalization.

Also , many have waited for technology and price to
get better I think. I still find myself hanging on for the perfect scope.
I
am
not one to rush out and be apart of the DOB crowd. I just cringe at the
thought.
We are a more demanding lot and we want all bases covered.


Who is "we?" Do you speak for a generation?

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Bring it on. I am all for the teaching of
other "theories"--provided they are really
taught in the context of science, so that
creation science and the like can be
shown for the shoddy scaffold of
half-truths, errors, and inconsistencies
that they are.

Brian Tung

YES! Very good point! If "creation science," "intelligent design," and
other such wishful, imaginary, crapola want to masquerade as science,
they should be subjected to the same rough and tumble indignities as any
other scientific theory. If they were actually allowed to be discussed
in schools under such a harsh light, the proponents of such crap could
well regret their efforts at having forced them into the curricula of
public schools. I've long thought a course in the history of scientific
thought would be more valuable to the general public than the generally
available courses in specific subjects... chemistry, biology, etc. This
way, theories of the past could be taught, along with expanations of why
they were popular and why they fell by the wayside. Probably best not
to get me started...
Marty

Too late! 8-)
I'm concenred that as a practical matter there will be very little debate at
the level on which creation science will be taught--to elementary and high
school students. Sadly, most of them will be encouraged to merely
regurgitate what they have been fed, without digesting much of it.
I've taught freshman history at a couple of local colleges, and the level of
critical thought was extremely low. One faculty member siad that one of the
major purposes of his classes was to "unlearn" what the students had been
taught in high school.

Bob