Robert Burnham 個人專訪首度曝光

[黑天鵝]

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... nham_j.php

[mwtse]

I would like to quote the following:

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.

[社長]

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

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。2003年我引入STARLAB立體星象館時，有些人說那是玩具，不是"真正天文"，但至今成效有目共睹。

對我來說，登上5000海拔去建一個天文台，就是一個"adventure"，的確有一部人對這種歷程的興趣比研習什麼理論或拍一張什麼深空照高，剛David也說他有興趣和我一起登珠峰，至今也有好些同好想日後到我的西藏天文台觀星。

[mwtse]

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

請謝分享，花了好一會看完，正期待明天的下半集。希望將來有中文翻譯。

[黑天鵝]

I would like to quote the following...

Thank you for making it brief! The whole article is too long to read during peak hour. You really catch the points, and I totally agree with Robert Burnham. I am just an ordinary man, I am not interested in pure theory, nor arguing with those "gifted" or those with mental illness.

I especially agree that astronomy is the direct experience of the universe, and that is why some people keep looking at the stars.

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。

從前，有一位同好說了類似的說話。結果，他死了。

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]

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

中國有些地區的人對政治特別感興趣，每次聚會吃飯時就談國家大事，世界局勢，但每當談或爭論上兩三小時，到興高采烈或面紅耳赤時，就要看時間回家，因為明早還要上班，遲到了被老闆罵或要扣勤工奬就不好了。

從前，有一位同好說了類似的說話。結果，他死了。

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。

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?

圖片展我沒看過，但從美的角度看，對市民大眾應有一定感染力，我不認為那場合需要拿放大鏡來看追蹤、調焦、像差等細節。

但我對"格"鏡則有些意見，當今天我和David已在格203APO及18" UC，也是在真實星空下"格"鏡，所以對那些小鏡不會太感興趣。論小鏡性能，我們也有客觀的測試聚會，出動的鏡也不少：
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=763#p7729

對我來說，今天拿些小口徑望遠鏡出來"格"其實已沒太多震撼力，餘下來的價值，就是能否從"格"的過程中有些結論，例如我們測試，引證了三片 > 螢石兩片 > ED兩片 > 普消的表現，也引證了螢石兩片在450nm以下出現的問題。

[mwtse]

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。

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...

[David]

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。

[David]

I would like to quote the following:

Thank you so much for Tse Sir's highlight. I am so busy with marking exam papers....

[mwtse]

part II 講人類的經濟活動、太空植民的不可行等，與天文的關係不密切，不過仍然是充滿智慧的精闢分析，如果對這一類議題沒有興趣可以略過。

有一點可以提，就是在太空植民不會有助推廣天文，因為太空站要自轉來產生人造引力，結果恆星的視移動會非常快，不利觀察。而且在太空站觀星，要透過厚厚的玻璃望出去，或者穿上太空衣作太空漫步，但穿著頭盔又怎樣使用望遠鏡呢？始終都是在地球上，晚上走到星空底下看星更好。

[社長]

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.

從我合作的不同學校中，有直資學校，每年小一超過三千人報名。

另一家則相反，作為全港最富有的校董家族之一，每年自掏腰包百多萬去津貼那全校只有百多名學生，家長不付分文，肯入讀便可以，結果是每年僅開一班22人收生也很吃力。究竟原因何在，又或者該校是否有其獨到之處而未被人知，我相信另一校董港大副校長李焯芬教授有其觀點。

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.

06年我走進亞阿姆斯特丹的梵高博物館，看了一個下午，我得承認自己完全不懂欣賞他的作品。當然我們也可以批評當時歐洲的人水平太低，讓他在生時只能賣出一幅畫。我不懂評論梵高在生時的”懷才不遇”是他本人或”觀眾”的問題多些，但我也得承認，在香港天文界沒出現梵高前，我這等凡夫俗子，能做到畢卡索已夠滿足了。

但年初我為沙呂小建的數碼天文館開幕儀式上，致力普及天文的中大物理系朱明中教授說了一句很合我心意，對青少年普及天文，首要是提升其對天文興趣，之後才是傳授智識，所以若第一步已把人嚇怕/悶倒了，第二步便沒機會了。

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=356#p7584

無獨有偶，我在西藏有幸認識一位北京來，才四十多歲的首席科學家、教授、博士後指導員，他的下一個任務是在西藏建立一台造價60億的4米口徑自適應光學天望遠鏡，他鼓勵我把香港的一些推動天文活動的經驗引進，在西藏大學培培養出一批青少年天文愛好者，然後用他的說法，經”大浪淘沙”後，把有質量的少數送進新成立的天文研究所，中國下一代的天文學家可能就是那裡來的。

[社長]

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。

你曾經擁有過的那些，肯定是很好的鏡，但絶不是唯一或最好的鏡。我和你都不是光學專家或資深望遠鏡鑑賞員，但在兩台鏡並排下對照測試，用正常的眼睛還是能看出分別的，然後再去決定買較好/較適合的一枝，便是很可靠的方法。不再迷信品牌，亦不用借品牌去取得群組或身份認同，那是自信的表現。

3年前跟你在赤柱聖士提反灣碼頭"格鏡"的那一幕，真是很精采的。三年來你的Equinox 120在太陽、月面及深空表現上也恰如其份吧?

http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!Lriapj2VE ... le?mid=173