PDA

View Full Version : Our BA in the May Sky and Telescope!!



hewhocaves
2004-Mar-16, 07:01 PM
so I just got my copy of the May S&T and right on the front cover it says:

A Debunker's guide to COSMIC NONSENSE (caps theirs)

so I said to myself "heh.. looks like Phil Plait's got an article in this month"
(flip flip flip flip) hey, wow... I was right!!!!

Am I the first one to notice this? I did a search through the board, but nuthin came up.

john

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-16, 07:31 PM
I know it's been mentioned recently, I think in BABBling.

hewhocaves
2004-Mar-16, 07:39 PM
darn! so much for my fortune and glory.

well, I'll just have to go back to my old project... uploading dubious pictures to opportunity and spirit. I'll give you guys a hint.. next week, one of the landers will find a disney character.... lol

TriangleMan
2004-Mar-16, 09:48 PM
Anyone mind saying what the article was about? :-?

hewhocaves
2004-Mar-16, 10:13 PM
no problem.. it's like the title says.. from what I've skimmed it's a summary of some of the more common points made in the book 'Bad Astronomy'. There's a section on Astrology, the moon hoax, alien abductions and UFOs. but the main thread of the story is HOW to debate; i.e. thoughtful, rational patient discussion rather than just metaphorically flipping the person off. The premise for the article is that it's taking place in a public forum (i.e. a star party) and you don't want to sound as far out in left field as they are. there's a couple of other things in there, like woo-woos overreliance on detail and the tendency for their websites to be all in CAPS (lol) and that these people are persecuted 'like Galileo'

well, worth the read IMHO, plus Sky and Telescope has a new format. they have articles on the two comets coming in may and the venus transit. can you tell i like the magazine?

:P

Kaptain K
2004-Mar-16, 11:26 PM
How di you get yours so soon???? Mine (usually) doesn't arrive until after the 20th!

hewhocaves
2004-Mar-17, 12:31 AM
dunno, but i like the new format.

R.A.F.
2004-Mar-17, 03:49 PM
Does anyone have any idea when this will "hit the newsstands"??

hewhocaves
2004-Mar-17, 04:00 PM
when I used to get it over the counter, it would come out either the last week of the month or the first week of the next month, depending on the newsstand. I'm guessing because i got it so early that it'll be out early.

TriangleMan
2004-Mar-17, 04:39 PM
I'll keep an eye out for it but I don't think it'll be here for a while. :(

Kaptain K
2004-Mar-17, 05:59 PM
I read both Sky & Telescope and Astronomy. I subscribed to S&T because the local grocery store didn't carry it and I couldn't alway make a trip to the book store (I live 50 Km from the big city and work nights.) Interestingly, as soon as I subsribed to S&T, the local store quit carrying Astronomy and now occasionally stocks S&T. Looks like I'm going to subscribe to Astronomy as well. :o

hewhocaves
2004-Mar-17, 06:21 PM
i decided to just keep one mag (i used to get both) just to save costs adn space.... i picked S&T solely because on the spine you can see the month's feature articles (like Nat'l geographic).

edit: woo hoo 80 posts!

Kaptain K
2004-Mar-17, 06:57 PM
I chose S&T because it is aimed a little higher than Astronomy.
I have been an amateur astronomer for a long time.

tngolfplayer
2004-Mar-18, 01:02 AM
No fair, you got the new S&T already? I may just have to subscribe. I doubt it will hit bookstores for at least another week.

Kaptain K
2004-Mar-18, 06:29 AM
OK - I got mine today. Haven't had a chance to read it yet.

parejkoj
2004-Apr-30, 05:21 AM
I just want to note (yeah, I'm a bit late getting on this bus, but that's the story of my life), that I really enjoyed the BA's article. I finally had a chance to get to the library and read it, and I was quite impressed. I wish I could just carry around several copies of it to hand out to people, as well as one for myself whenever I get really fed up with someone's nonsense.

Go BA! 8)

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Apr-30, 05:52 AM
Thanks. Of course, not everyone likes it (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/apr/m28-013.shtml). 8)

Taibak
2004-Apr-30, 06:05 AM
Thanks. Of course, not everyone likes it (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/apr/m28-013.shtml). 8)

Well, *I* liked it. :D

And it makes perfect sense to me that the people who spend the most time watching the sky should see the most alien spacecraft....

freddo
2004-Apr-30, 06:06 AM
This is
logic?

You know, I was thinking, perhaps this isn't a rhetorical question... :wink:

The answer is yes Stan, it is logic. :D

Musashi
2004-Apr-30, 06:21 AM
Let's see if I can pull a Friedmen:

"The article itself has a lot of nonsense in it" (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/apr/m28-013.shtml) - Stan Friedman NUCLEAR PHYSICIST

[For some reason I like orange better.]

Wolverine
2004-Apr-30, 06:29 AM
Let's see if I can pull a Friedmen:

"The article itself has a lot of nonsense in it" (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/apr/m28-013.shtml) - Stan Friedman

Bah, not good enough! [-X

After the name, you forgot to tack on the phrase NUCLEAR PHYSICIST in 10' high neon letters. :P

Musashi
2004-Apr-30, 06:34 AM
:oops: Sorry.

Fixed. :)

Wolverine
2004-Apr-30, 07:33 AM
:D =D>

Much better.

milli360
2004-Apr-30, 07:38 AM
This is
logic?

You know, I was thinking, perhaps this isn't a rhetorical question... :wink:

The answer is yes Stan, it is logic. :D
Someone else agreed with Stan (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/apr/m28-016.shtml).

Apparently, astronomers only look at pieces of the sky the size of a pinhead.

George
2004-Apr-30, 01:53 PM
Someone else agreed with Stan (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/apr/m28-016.shtml).

Apparently, astronomers only look at pieces of the sky the size of a pinhead.


Actually, I always thought that Forest Rangers who live in those
high, isolated lookout towers in the mountains would probably
see more UFOs than anybody else.

I would have thought he'd say that Rangers only looked at trees? :roll:


Once while my wife and I were taking a daytime tour of a lookout tower, we were chatting with the Ranger happily until the subject turned to UFOs. At that point the young man clammed up tight. Obviously a sore spot. Of course, that might be his usual reaction when discovering the
person he's talking to you was a "kook." That was not this kook's impression, however.

[Pretty rich, but he sounds like an honest guy so I will reserve further comment.]

BTW - this has become a duplicate thread.

Andromeda321
2004-Apr-30, 01:53 PM
Apparently, astronomers only look at pieces of the sky the size of a pinhead.
Yep, because we are all so good at astronomy we can immediately find that incredibly small part of the sky without using reference points!

Kaptain K
2004-Apr-30, 06:17 PM
Apparently, astronomers only look at pieces of the sky the size of a pinhead.
Yep, because we are all so good at astronomy we can immediately find that incredibly small part of the sky without using reference points!
Don't you know that we all have computerized "goto" telescopes and keep our heads down until the scope has slewed to the object in question?

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Apr-30, 07:31 PM
Besides the ridiculousness of saying amateurs don't look at the sky, his point about rangers still supports my position: people who spend more time looking at the sky should report more UFOs. They don't, because they are more familiar with the sky. They know the difference between Venus, an Iridium flare, and something they really don't understand. Saying they won't report it because of the current culture is a major cop-out.

milli360
2004-May-01, 03:27 PM
Besides the ridiculousness of saying amateurs don't look at the sky, his point about rangers still supports my position: people who spend more time looking at the sky should report more UFOs. They don't, because they are more familiar with the sky. They know the difference between Venus, an Iridium flare, and something they really don't understand. Saying they won't report it because of the current culture is a major cop-out.
Also, if they don't know what it is, they often know exactly when and where it was when they saw it, which allows others to identify it precisely. Most observations that go unknown are uncertain.

Wolverine
2004-May-02, 02:05 AM
Bleh, I apparently didn't catch the May issue of S&T in time; the shops here have nothing but the June issue on the shelf. :(

Is the article available anywhere else?

tracer
2004-May-03, 04:32 AM
Of course, not everyone likes it (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/apr/m28-013.shtml). 8)
From the Friedman piece:

Funny thing is that I agree with Plait's comments about the fallacies about our not going to the moon. He surely hasn't done his homework about UFOs, which is par for the course for astronomers.
Heh. Typical reaction from woo-woos: "Boy, you sure did a good job pointing out the errors in those other pseudoscientific claims -- but you were totally wrong to denigrate my pseudoscientific claim!"

Martin Gardner had to put up with a lot of that after he published Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, particularly from orgonomists (http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/Reich/).

Wolverine
2004-May-05, 04:07 AM
Bleh, I apparently didn't catch the May issue of S&T in time; the shops here have nothing but the June issue on the shelf. :(

Is the article available anywhere else?


Whee!!! Nevermind...

I was thumbing through some magazines on the way home this evening, and just happened to find a May issue of S&T buried in the wrong place.
\:D/

Looking forward to reading...