Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized

I'd like to suggest that the argument you guys are having is way off the
main point: what is needed is need a paradigm shift in your point of
view. Try imagining *why* people buy these star names. That's the key
issue as I see it. Why do they do it? Talk to some of them about that.
You may be surprised by the answer. And you may be surprised how
that answer affects the whole house of cards argument that these
companies offer nothing in return for the money.



--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Derek Lyons wrote:
Greg Crinklaw wrote:

Everything I have read so far on this thread only confirms my belief.
This isn't really about crooked star naming companies at all. It's
about us astronomers being less than perfect human beings.

snip addled nonsense

And your answer is lie and mislead the people who have bought star
names. What a *wonderful* way to convince them of the value of
science.

My God, what a bizarre and irrational point of view. Not mention
entirely circular logic... But that's what we have here folks. It's
the nature of the beast and it ain't pretty.


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Craig wrote:

Damn! A few years ago I came out with the idea of naming a crater for
some one with all proceeds going to the IDA. I should have put something
in to place. Maybe I still will. Of course I would not misrepresent the
transaction, and I would tell folks that what they are getting is a
piece of paper that they can show their friends, but in a greater
gesture they would be helping to preserve the night sky for future
generations.

I could tolerate these star naming companies if they in fact donated to
the IDA.

Careful... that's a slippery slope. Once you accept the idea that the
basic premise isn't evil by nature, the next thing you know you'll be
ostracizing yourself here like me!

Heck, I'd prefer the IAU to sell the names. That way all their data
products (including the IAU Circulars) would be free to everyone. And
when they claimed they were official, nobody could argue otherwise! :-)


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
I'd like to suggest that the argument you guys are having is way off the
main point: what is needed is need a paradigm shift in your point of
view. Try imagining *why* people buy these star names. That's the key
issue as I see it. Why do they do it? Talk to some of them about that.

Do you honestly think that none of us are doing that? If you want us
to consider your point fairly, consider others fairly too. If your
counterargument is just that "You need a paradigm shift," you'll have
to pardon some people if they find that just a tad condescending.

Brian Tung
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

Brian Tung wrote:

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

I'd like to suggest that the argument you guys are having is way off the
main point: what is needed is need a paradigm shift in your point of
view. Try imagining *why* people buy these star names. That's the key
issue as I see it. Why do they do it? Talk to some of them about that.

Do you honestly think that none of us are doing that? If you want us
to consider your point fairly, consider others fairly too. If your
counterargument is just that "You need a paradigm shift," you'll have
to pardon some people if they find that just a tad condescending.

Your response indicates that I must have not have made myself very
clear. Given what I meant to say, your comments come across as
needlessly defensive.

I should know better by now than to repeat myself, but here goes: I was
trying to point out that the root of this argument lies at in the very
first, most basic assumption one makes. To even begin to comprehend
that there may be another valid point of view one must first understand
one's own root assumptions. If one replaces one simple assumption with
another, one is led to a completely different set of conclusions. That
was the paradigm shift that I was speaking of.

Furthermore, I was attempting to point out what I see as the root
question, one that I feel is being ignored by many in favor of
presumptuous suppositions: the motivation of the people who purchase
these star names.

I don't see how one can make a logical argument one way or another until
the motivations of the customers are understood. I believe this is the
key factor because, if the motivations are sincere and the star naming
companies are fulfilling a real need, then the practice simply can't be
as evil and vacuous as people make it out to be.

I gave examples of Aunts and deceased loved ones and the other side just
ignored that as if I'm way off base. I think that speaks volumes and
points directly to where the gulf in thinking lies. Instead of assuming
the practice is a scam as a first assumption, as nearly every astronomer
does, instead try looking at this practice as if one is buying a
Hallmark card. What is Hallmark giving in return? A piece of paper
that isn't even unique! What a ripoff. You see, I don't think this is
about stars at all, it's about sentiment! But unless one allows oneself
to entertain and explore that idea one will never even comprehend the
resulting point of view.

As I pointed out before, if this really is about sentiment then we are
the bad guys, not the star naming companies, because we are the ones who
tread on that sentiment every time we tell people that they have been
had. In short, it's not the customers who don't get it, it's us! How's
that for a paradigm shift! :-)

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Craig wrote:

Greg,

I had this happen to me a few weeks ago at an outreach we hosted. A
mother came up to me with her 8 year old son and a certificate for a
star she named for him. Ihey wanted to see it of course.

I looked at the documentation they had and quickly discovered that the
star was below the horizion. I then fired up my laptop and tried to show
him where the star was. I used the following programs, Starry Night pro,
The Sky Level 4 Ver. 5, Cartes Du Ceil, and Skytools 2.1c. Of course the
coodinates they gave were devoid of any stars down to at least 18th mag.

I then took the time to explain to them the following:

1: The naming of a star is a nice gesture, but the name is not
officially recognized outside that naming company, and that companies
often just give coordinates, and that very often the star if there is
one is so faint that we can't see it with telescopes from light polluted
areas.
2: I was about the boy's age when I got into astronomy and it is a
wonderful and fascinating hobby.
3: If we have an out reach when his "Star" is up, we'll at least give
him a look at the part of th sky where it is supposed to be.

Nice job Craig. It's so much easier to puff out one's chest and show
how smart you are by telling them they have been had by a scam. As
someone said elsewhere on this thread: just like the club know-it-all.
Maybe we've all been that person at one time or another, but we can
aspire to do better; to do as you did. I hope that we can all at least
agree on that point.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Do you honestly think that none of us are doing that? If you want us
to consider your point fairly, consider others fairly too. If your
counterargument is just that "You need a paradigm shift," you'll have
to pardon some people if they find that just a tad condescending.

Your response indicates that I must have not have made myself very
clear. Given what I meant to say, your comments come across as
needlessly defensive.

Well, I'd like to think so, but from your repetition, I don't think
you were unclear. (And gee, thanks for calling my statements as
needlessly defensive. Right back atcha.)

I think that many people--certainly myself--have considered at many
points the motivations for buying a star name. I certainly can appreciate
that many people *do* buy it knowing exactly what they are getting.
These people occasionally still want to know how to find their star in
the sky, and I am perfectly happy to help them.

I don't think your examples of loved ones were ignored so much as (in
my case, anyway) I don't understand what we are supposed to make of
them. That the sentiment of the purchasers is a good one is supposed
to make me think the practice isn't a scam? No--I think the practice
is a scam if it's a scam. I'm glad some people get something out of
it, but that doesn't make me think that the company is catering to
them out of honest service-for-pay. If they were, they wouldn't have
to resort to deceptive advertising.

For example, suppose I were to start selling diamond rings. The hitch
is that the diamonds aren't *quite* genuine. However, I don't actually
come out and say that they're diamond rings. I call them engagement
rings and anniversary rings, and I refer to their exquisite cut and
clarity and color, and of course, their outstanding value. Why, other
competing rings cost three to four times what I'm selling these rings
at. People buy my rings for their loved ones and many people are very
happy about them. In a sense, they've gotten what they wanted.

However, the gems still really aren't diamonds. If someone wants to
insure them and needs to get them appraised first, what should the
appraiser tell them? That the gems really are worth three to four times
their cost? Or that the gems aren't really diamonds but are a very
high-quality simulation? I'm sure you can appreciate that it would be
a very difficult situation for the appraiser.

In this case, because so much money is on the line, the appraiser is
ethically (and probably legally) bound to tell the truth. In that
sense, my analogy is inaccurate. But the point I'm trying to express
in this analogy is that what makes it difficult is that we must weigh
the emotional impact on the consumer against the protection of consumers
against further scams of the same kind, and that is not made any less
difficult by the cost being less. You seem to place greater weight on
the emotional impact on the consumer than others in this thread do.
That's your right, but I don't think it's quite fair (or accurate) to
suggest that a paradigm shift will "do the trick" for those who disagree.

I read your Hallmark card analogy, but I also think that is inaccurate.
It's true that the Hallmark card is simply a piece of paper that isn't
even unique, but as far as I can tell, Hallmark doesn't attempt to
convince you otherwise. Those cards are placed in piles of identical
cards. Whereas some of these registries go to some length to convince
you that you are getting the "right" to name a particular star. If it
were like Hallmark, everyone should get a bright star. It would then
be obvious that the star names weren't unique, and many people would
have far less problem with the registry than they do now.

As I pointed out before, if this really is about sentiment then we are
the bad guys, not the star naming companies, because we are the ones who
tread on that sentiment every time we tell people that they have been
had. In short, it's not the customers who don't get it, it's us! How's
that for a paradigm shift! :-)

Even granting that it is about the thought, rather than the action, I
still disagree, because the star naming company creates the conflict
that puts us in the difficult position of deciding whether to tell the
truth, or to lie (if only by omission) and protect their feelings. By
that train of thought, what the star naming companies do to mislead
consumers *is* relevant, because that makes it more likely that someone
will do something they don't want. Yes, for many people the sentiment
is the main thing, but for some, at least, it isn't, and they wouldn't
spend their money if all they were getting was the stellar equivalent
of a Hallmark card. You may disagree, that's fine, but I don't think
any paradigm shift will create agreement out of thin air.

I'm sorry to say, my opinion is that there are certain disputes that are
not just a matter of someone not seeing things "the other way." Sometimes
disagreements are just disagreements. In those cases, I don't think we
should tell others that they need a paradigm shift. Personally, I'm not
upset because I don't really care that much what you think I need g,
but some people do seem upset, and it seemed that you were misinterpreting
the reason for that. In that case, you're right, repeating yourself will
only put oil on the fire.

Brian Tung
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

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Nice job Craig. It's so much easier to puff out one's chest and show
how smart you are by telling them they have been had by a scam. As
someone said elsewhere on this thread: just like the club know-it-all.

I don't think that's a very nice thing to say to someone who merely
disagrees about the right course of action. Your point--that it can
hurt someone to be told they've been had--is a valid one to consider,
without being accompanied by name-calling.

Honestly, Greg, not trying to play netcop, but it does seem unfair.

Brian Tung
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

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

Stop reacting for a minute and try to see the other point of view!

I do see that point, but I'm afraid that it is you who are over reacting (as
well as not really reading the replies you are getting). You are the one
concluding that its some sort of "snooty attitude" that prevents us from
selling starnames. We don't do it because we know the truth about star names
in the science of Astronomy, and we choose to follow that convention. As
novelty item, fine, go ahead, its ok to "buy" the star (as long as the person
understands the lack of "officiality" in the star name, which it is clear that
not everyone does). However, any wording or "claims" hinting of some official
nature to the name (like the misleading "registered in the U.S. copyright
office") is a questionable tactic at best.
I never said that it would be best to shut these people down and sneer at
those who purchase these parchments; only that we sometimes have problems with
the people who get these alleged "star names" and mistakenly think they are
astronomically valid. Again, there are far better ways of remembering someone
than spending $50 or more on what is basically a cheap piece of parchment. A
monetary gift to a charitable organization (American Cancer Society, American
Heart Association, ect.) in memory of one who has passed-on is better. A book
donated to a local library in memory of someone is better. A fine dinner or a
movie for a spouse is better. A book on the stars for someone who is
interested in them is better. *All* of these things and more are better and
they do *not* promise something which isn't exactly true. It would be far
better for those people who are considering a star-name purchase to pick a
star at random *that they can see for themselves*, have someone make up a nice
certificate on a computer for the star name or "dedication" and then give it
to someone. It would have just as much validity (or lack thereof) as the
expensive piece of paper which some of these outlets provide, and would
probably mean more to the recipient, since the giver would have gone to all
the trouble of finding the star and making the certificate without merely
paying someone $50 just to save themselves the trouble.
We can welcome people into the experience the heavens provides, and
nuture their interest, but it would be dishonest to not tell those who
purchase their pieces of paper that the name is not recognized in Astronomy.
Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

I (Brian Tung) wrote:
Even granting that it is about the thought, rather than the action, I
still disagree, because the star naming company creates the conflict
that puts us in the difficult position of deciding whether to tell the
truth, or to lie (if only by omission) and protect their feelings. By
that train of thought, what the star naming companies do to mislead
consumers *is* relevant, because that makes it more likely that someone
will do something they don't want. Yes, for many people the sentiment
is the main thing, but for some, at least, it isn't, and they wouldn't
spend their money if all they were getting was the stellar equivalent
of a Hallmark card. You may disagree, that's fine, but I don't think
any paradigm shift will create agreement out of thin air.

By the way, one reason why I think the decision *is* so difficult is
that there are plenty of times when one is ethically compelled to tell
the truth, even when it will hurt the person you're telling. Is this
one of those times? Maybe yes, maybe no, but the vehement disagreement
is simply a reflection that it is a difficult decision. If it weren't,
this thread would have been over a long time ago.

Brian Tung
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