Is Astrophotography a science or art? Other · IrishAstro4484 · ... · 111 · 4540 · 2

Timothy Martin:
What it all comes down to is that you don't believe I'm doing science, and I do. I personally know scientists who think astrophotography is a scientific pursuit and those who don't. As I told Bogdan, the demarcation problem is a difficult one that doesn't yet seem to have any firm resolution. It's beyond my ken. And it's unlikely we'll figure it out here. But I do enjoy this conversation, so please don't take offense to anything I've said (and believe it or not, I've changed my mind many times as the result of well-constructed discussions with people on the internet). I sure don't mean any offense

If you think that you are doing science, please give me the theory that you are trying to disprove or the cause and effect that you are trying to measure along with your hypothesis showing how data from your images will be used to support it.  Simply because you wonder what M31 looks like imaged through your telescope does not make that a science project and sadly that's the kind of project I often see on display at elementary school level science fairs.  Imaging M31 is a worthwhile thing to do but simply creating an image is not science; it's an activity not unlike taking a picture of your family in front of your house.

Based on your questions about the doctor's efforts to reproduce Hubble's results, it sounds like you haven't published very many articles in scientific journals.  The distance to Andromeda has been measured countless times using different methods using very sophisticated techniques that include careful error analysis.  The doctor did an amazing job with his measurements but his hope as an amateur of publishing his results in a serious journal were extremely low.  Journals are peer reviewed and because of the large number of submissions, they focus on publishing papers that push the boundaries of understanding.  Just because his work wasn't published in a scientific journal didn't make it any less of a science project.

You've raised other points that clearly show that you do not have a firm grasp of what science is and you seem fixed in your opinions.  So, at this point, I don't think that I'm going to change your mind.  It might be beneficial for you to read up on the subject of science and to even read some scientific journals to better understand the process.  Simply creating beautiful and inspiring images of the cosmos is not a scientific endeavor.

John

James Peirce:
It seems like some disagreement here is based on the definition of “science.”

If we are defining science relative to the scientific method, or generally as deliberate or purposeful science, as it sounds like John is doing, then I would have to agree that there presents a much clearer delineation of what is and isn’t science in astrophotography, broadly landing on the “isn’t science” side of things, outside images published as part of a scientific pursuit, which would generally drop the idea of post-processing a lovely image.

And I think a very fair argument can be made for defining it as such. Such is often even incorporated into the definition.

But if we are defining science to encompass something that may have scientific application or merit—say, accidentally discovering something, or data which may be referenced in some capacity to see what may have been happening at a point, or the images published from Hubble, James Webb based on data collected for scientific research but, in this capacity, used to educate the public on a scientific interest and garner interest in science—it becomes much easier to argue that science plays a greater or fuzzier or varied role in astrophotography.

Kinda of a clearer version of where the “this is art” discussion usually heads. People come into that discussion with different definitions of “art”—whether well-intentioned or based on the interpretation which supports the answer they want to believe—and end up arguing over what is and isn’t art when they don’t even agree on what “art” happens to be. Just in terms of science, if incorporating the deliberate component of scientific research, the answer becomes pretty clear in my opinion.

James,
As I've said, discovery is not in itself science.  @Marcel Drechsler and the rest of his team have discovered an extraordinary number of new objects but they have also contributed to refereed papers that  use those discoveries to further theories about how those objects formed and how they fit into larger cosmological theories.  Being the first to discover a Nova has no value unless the discoverer immediately notifies the Astronomical Union so that various instruments can be turned on the object to study it further.  This recently happened (maybe a year or two ago) when an amateur who was setting up a new remote telescope and noticed a "new" star in a galaxy.  He certainly contributed to the science that followed but that was because he was wise enough to immediately report it.  So in cases like that, amateurs can contribute to scientific studies but the mere act of imaging without any connection to a science based study isn't science.

As for Hubble and JWST images, those "pretty pictures" are released to generate public support for these very expensive programs that tax payers fund.  Yes, they are inspiring and they do generate support; but the pictures themselves are not what the science mission is all about.

I personally have a lot invested in my imaging gear but I don't really have any scientific mission behind it and I'm totally comfortable thinking of the whole thing as mostly an art project with a certain amount of engineering thrown in for good luck.

John

Observational astronomy has long be considered the "only" scientific astronomical endeavor and in that sense taking some true image of astronomical objects is potentially a scientific endeavor (or discovery) without requiring any further analysis or fitting into any mathematical model of whatever is relevant to it. In fact it doesn't even need to be known to be potentially a fact of science, it just needs to be observed.  But on the other hand AP is very much akin to landscape photography but with the landscape being essentially invisible to the naked eye.

John Hayes:
James,

As I've said, discovery is not in itself science.  @Marcel Drechsler and the rest of his team have discovered an extraordinary number of new objects but they have also contributed to refereed papers that  use those discoveries to further theories about how those objects formed and how they fit into larger cosmological theories.  Being the first to discover a Nova has no value unless the discoverer immediately notifies the Astronomical Union so that various instruments can be turned on the object to study it further.  This recently happened (maybe a year or two ago) when an amateur who was setting up a new remote telescope and noticed a "new" star in a galaxy.  He certainly contributed to the science that followed but that was because he was wise enough to immediately report it.  So in cases like that, amateurs can contribute to scientific studies but the mere act of imaging without any connection to a science based study isn't science.

As for Hubble and JWST images, those "pretty pictures" are released to generate public support for these very expensive programs that tax payers fund.  Yes, they are inspiring and they do generate support; but the pictures themselves are not what the science mission is all about.

I personally have a lot invested in my imaging gear but I don't really have any scientific mission behind it and I'm totally comfortable thinking of the whole thing as mostly an art project with a certain amount of engineering thrown in for good luck.

John

At face value it sounds rather like we are in agreement about the answer, if only relative to the interpretation you have outlined. If one does not consider contributing to science actual “science” then I’m not sure what disagreement there would be to raise about your point. But if one considered contributing to “science” a scientific undertaking or a part of “science,” they may have an argument to make.

Hence my point about it seeming like a part of this discussion is a disagreement over what “science” means.

Brian Boyle:
What we do here is wonderful, entertaining and inspirational.   But I find it of some concern that so many think it is science.

As a retired scientist, I love doing astrophotography and I am very happy to be part of the AB community.  In a large part, this is because it so different from the necessary rigours of being part of a scientific discipline and community. 

I don't have to come up with hypothesis to test, rigorously collect data in an unbiased fashion, comprehensively reference or acknowledgement previous work [although here I do try] or provide images/raw data that are reproducible for others to confirm the legitimacy of my data collection and processing.  [Heck, I can't even reproduce my own images from one post-processing to the next].  I could even name any new discoveries after myself, ignoring IAU convention.  [Actually I wouldn't, and IAU convention is the most appropriate and useful anyway].   Thankfully, I don't make any these days, since I would have a hard job assessing their significance, since I had not chosen my fields in an unbiased fashion in the first place.  

AP still gives me a connection with the science of astronomy, through the use of images for science communication. But the images are only the medium.  I rely on the science uncovered by professionals to tell the astronomy story behind the images.  I don't think any audience is going to be riveted by my stories of post-processing, even if I do think the RCAstro tools are all kinds of wonderful.

I also collect data from my weather station, does that give me the legitimacy to claim that I am doing climate science?   

The trouble is, when everyone is a scientist -  no-one is.   

CS Brian

*I completely agree with Brian and @John Hayes on this.  As a retired scientist, trained on the method and published in my field, I too am a bit troubled by those not trained as such making claims and definitive statements that AP is science.  That said, anyone is free to believe what you want and even convince your family and relatives that you are doing science.  Most here are not.  Conversely, those who struggle with AP being an art seem to have some sensitivities to being called an artist.  As if doing science is "better" than doing art.  Most art requires a technology of sorts.  Be it a fine paintbrush or a supercomputer.  That you fiddle with complex light capturing tools is all technology that is the product of some science at some point in the past.  That doesn't make the product of that technology science.  Technology does not make science.  Science is a process of real discovery in the setting of a community which can critically review the discovery and judge it as novel.   Meaning, just because you personally discovered something does not make it meaningful if it is already well known, which admittedly can be personally rewarding.

I have posted much earlier on this thread that simple discovery, for the purpose of cataloging is a tradition in science.  Many areas of science started as such.  Maybe this is not the most current idea of the scientific method, but was critical at those times.  After all where would Darwin have ended up without all those collections of birds, butterflies, turtles, etc. collected in the years prior to his arrival.  So finding and cataloging new things in the cosmos certainly had its place in the history of science. It may be true that the discovery of another nebula or galaxy now and then could be interesting for some.  But no newly trained astronomer is really going to spend their time looking for nebula number 1001.  Unless the objects discovered are truly novel by proving the existence of something only predicted by theory, for example.  And for astrophysics, the challenge is experiments mostly don't lend themselves to lab experiments as done in chemistry, biology and physics (sometimes!). Controls are challenging to set up, etc.  Anyway, I'm drifting from the main topic.

Alan

I think the intention of the question was to have fun with it and not to discover a new philosophy or social hierarchy and engage in serious debate.  

In the spirit of fun, here is an alternate definition of science and art. 

Science, at its core, is about the necessities of life and improving it's quality.   It is about finding how to  provide the necessities of life in a better (effectiveness and efficiency) way.   The science of geology likely started in the understanding of how to make better spearheads.   The science of medicine likely started with what plant to eat to make you feel better.   Engineering was required to cross a stream or make a cart in order to bring home a felled mammoth.

Art is about the value of life.   This value is dependent upon science, in that it is only the excess of the necessities that allows it to exist and compound.   Farmers and bricklayers are allowing for art, by providing excess food and shelter for a painter (or astrophotographer for that matter) to create the art.   At the end of the day - society will be judged by the art it creates.   Why else are we continuing to push this rock up hill?

Astronomy and other more esoteric "sciences" are really art under this new definition (other than the ability to navigate by the stars).   The Hubble and JWST telescopes only exist because there is an excess of tax monies in the West to engage in the activity.   In terms of life's necessities - it doesn't really add anything.   In terms of the value - it adds a great deal!

So under this new definition, almost all of astronomy, let alone astrophotography is clearly an art.   Even the engagement of the central question is more philosophy, which itself is an art under this definition.

Maybe astrophotography is a third thing - not just a blending of art and science, but a third thing that is both and yet more than simply an interpolation.

My point here is that the question is seriously unanswerable, yet infinitely debatable.   Just don't take it too seriously and is worthless if it isn't fun.