Pre-interview with MK
JW: -preach, this isn’t post.. This isn’t.. It’s later than we think, but there .. we’re still gonna go through that post stuff.
MK: okay.
JW: So, I’m gonna be sending you another one of these, e-mail.
MK: okay.
JW: Just for you to do on Microsoft word.
MK: okay.
JW: Okay. So, I just want to go over and clarify some things that you wrote back then.
MK: Yeah.
JW: not what you know now.
MK: oh, okay.
JW: Okay. Don’t feel like you need to change it to what you say now. Because we are gonna get to that.
MK: Now is not now, but now is later.
JW: Now is.. before… What are we talking about? Whoever is transcribing this is terrible confused. <cough> Okay. “In your view, what is astronomy, how is it different from other sciences?” I have no questions about this. “It’s the study of stars, analysis. I think it is most similar to physics, not to life science” Ya, you want to expound on that, or..?
MK: well, I mean.. if there’s .. life found in other places..
JW: okay. I didn’t get a pen.
MK:.. astronomers could get
JW: <distant talking>
<pause>
should have done this a moment ago, but just couldn’t get in the mood. <laugh>Oh, I have your original, don’t I?
MK: wanna swap?
JW: Yeah, let’s swap Okay. You said, “light, emitting, spherical.” For the shape of stars. So, “All stars are spherical, they emit light.” That’s pretty straightforward. “Do you think astronomer’s are sure?” “Because they can measure stars using EM scales of radiation <something>” could you.. What were you thinking about?
MK: Okay, “how sure are astronomers about the structure of a star?”
JW: Right, that’s what you said.
MK: I said, ‘Measuring using electromagnetic, X-ray, Infrared, ultraviolet”
JW: Okay.. IR...UV Visible.. etc… Okay.
MK: <mummle>
JW: what kinds of.. it doesn’t say.. what kind of instrumentation do they use for that?
MK: Some kinds of .. receptor.. what ever would receive the specific wavelength of frequencies.
JW: Okay.
MK: Could be satellite based, could be ground based.
JW: Okay. Number three” Some astronomers believe the universe will expand forever, other’s believe that it will stop expanding and start contracting, and some believe it will expand until it gradually stops, and will not contract. How are these different possible if all astronomers are looking at the same observational data?” “the time aspect.. knowledge spans and astronomers data are extremely small…is that otherwise? I can’t read the copy.
MK: Okay. The time aspect, human life span, and astronomer’s data extremely small, time wise, compared to the number of years the universe has been around.
JW: So, do you think that if there was more time, that ultimately these astronomers would come done to all astronomers agreeing on one of these possible solutions?
MK: Yes. Because I think we would see more of a trend.. just like with our research.. We might be trying to figure out the paths of these stars.. but, we might have only four observations of them.
JW: So, given enough time, would you say that science would ultimately find the truth?
MK: Yes.
JW: given…<pause> Okay. So, that’s what you would think.. okie doke. That’s kinda what I thought, but, since you didn’t say that…..it was implied.. “Does the development of scientific knowledge, including astronomy, require experiments? Since you answered undr A, I am assuming you mea yes. “ you say.. “Though experiments we can control..
MK: Certain variables.
JW: …certain variables.
MK: We can observe processes on a smaller scale, and apply results to make future explanations and theories.
JW: Can you give me an example of an astronomical experiement? Since, including astronomy here, and you said yes..
MK: Ummm… <pause>
I was thinking probably more of observations.
JW: Okay, so.. observations are experiements?
MK: Yes.. Yes.
JW: are.. astro.. experiments. Okay. Alrighty. Number 5, “ What type s of activities do astronomers do to learn about the universe. Be specific about how they go about their work. ” I don’t understand what you were talking about on the second little tick mark. “Electromagnetic receiving devices measure radiation for spaces and object within.” I’m not quite sure what you were talking about.
MK: Measuring radiation from space.”
JW: Okay, so that’s “from”.
MK: <mummle>
JW: Within space?
MK: We are kinda going back a couple of questions ago, saying that <something> measuring different x-rays, gamma rays, visible light <mumble> coming from that stars, nebulae, what ever, that’s out there.
JW: okay. And then you say consult maps and charts, that’s pretty straight forward.
MK: Yeah.
JW: Umm… So, those are the main activities that you were thinking that astronomers do.
MK: Yeah.
JW: Okay. “What astronomers choose to study and how they learn about the universe may be influenced by a variety of factors. How do astronomers decide what to do?” Uhh.. I don’t have any questions about what you said.
MK: Okay.
JW: Umm….Unless you want to add something.
MK: No.
JW: “Write a definition of an astronomical observation.” And you said, “ A qualitative explanation of a body in space.” I don’t particularly have a question about that.. Umm.. although, I guess I should ask,.. what do you.. how were you meaning the word qualitative?
MK: Qualitative as far as, not involving numbers.
JW: okay, so
MK: Hot, cold; red, blue
<pause>
JW: Okay.
MK: “The star is in the east sky”, as opposed to, “the star is at this dec <did not understand > and at this <mumble>
JW: So, would you think that finding a constellation in the eastern sky, just going out and looking at it, seeing it in the east, is a scientific astronomical observation?
MK: Yes.
JW: What makes it scientific? <pause> In your opinion.
MK: Well, as opposed to a scientific astronomical measurement, I guess is what I’m saying.
JW: ah, okay, so observations are not measurements?
MK: right. I’m saying there is a difference between looking at it, and finding it in the east sky, as opposed to taking it and plotting it’s degrees or coordinates.
JW: okay, so, you say they are not measurements. And then you said in part B., you said “The universe is expanding outward.” Tell me how is that an example of a scientific astronomical observation.
MK: ,laugh>
JW: I guess your basing it on the fact that it is qualitative.
MK:Ya, it;’s qualitative, so ,its being observed.
JW: It… is… being observed…
MK: Not necessarily in that order.
JW: not.. necessarily.. being.. measured.. okay. So, again, it’s qualitative base.
MK: yeah.
JW: okay. Alrighty. Number 8, “An astronomer notices that with their unaided eye, they can see more blue stars in the night sky than red stars. Using a telescope, they also find more blue stars than red stars. This person concludes that blue stars are more common than red stars. Do you consider the persons investigation to be scientific? Explain why or why not.” You said “ No. Maybe red light is filtered out by stuff in space on it’s journey to the eye. Maybe the eye is better adapted to seeing blue light at night than compared to red.” Anything you want to add…
MK: No, nothing I want to add at this time.
JW: Okay, so, it’s still, you intended.. okay. “The data collected is limited by the method, use different instruments to count stars.” What do you mean by using different instruments?
MK: Different types of telescopes.. Obviously, different sizes
JW: Dfiferent.. types.. Does that mean sizes, or..?
MK: Yeah, sizes, and it also means equipment of different… as opposed to using a telescope.. using an electromagnetic spectrum, something that would receive..
JW: So, different parts of the spectrum?
MK: Yeah. You know, from satellite, ground based telescopes..
JW: okay.
MK: the naked eye.. Those are all different methods.
JW: okay. So, that’s what would make it scientific, that’s what you were thinking, that’s what would make it scientific observation.. You said it was not.
MK:<mumbling> Yeah, okay. So..
JW: Now, here you are telling me, these are ways that would have made it scientific.
MK: yeah.
JW: Okay. “Some people have claimed that all scientific investigations, including astronomy, must follow the same general steps or methods to be considered astronomy. Others claim differently.” <sigh> Tell me think about the scientific method, basically.
MK: It has to follow a logical procession, but define step-by-step method. Meaning.. You know.. The book say there are seven steps in the scientific method, it doesn’t necessarily have to do.
JW: So, you don’t believe in that.
MK: I don’t believe there are seven steps, cause you go and read another book that says there are thirteen steps. You know.. But, weather your looking at 5 steps or 13, there is still a logical procession. So, I’m saying it’s not defined, or combined step by step by step.
JW: So, you do not believe that you go step 1, step 2, step 3, bingo we have the answer
MK: Right.
JW: It’s, but there is a logical , that more or less.. It’s systematic. It may not follow specific steps.
MK: Yeah, There is a progression, but, sometimes you might have to step back, sometimes you might jump forward, based on data your getting
JW: Okay, so, it kinda goes back and forth.
MK: It’s dynamic, it’s
JW: Okay.
MK: It’s changing..
JW: It is more.. dynamic.. I like that. Number 10, “If several astronomers working independently ask the same question,” for example, what was the universe like 10 billion years ago.. try to put the on transcription.. “will they necessarily come to the same conclusion?” and you said , “No. The questions cannot be measured or answered exactly. exactly, it is more of an explanation, or given or found evidence..” So, what about other questions? Like the color of a star, which we discussed a minute ago. <pause> When we talked about blue stars and counting.. so that was an example from 10 billion years ago, and you said it could not be answered exactly, it is more of an explanation. What about-
MK: oh, oh.
JW: what about some other astronomical questions?
MK: Will they still come to the same conclusions?
JW: If they were just trying to determine the number of red and blue stars, would they come to the same conclusions.
MK:uhmm.. Everybody? No. A majority of people? There might be a majority that “this is what we believe is the whole truth.”
JW: Okay. So, if, let’s say… Your working with somebody here. Do you thinking.. Hrrmm. Okay, let’s say five scientist s here at Georgia State are working together on the same question. Collecting data, and analyzing the data, and interpreting the data. Now do you think they would reach the same conclusions? Your response was “No”, but you did not explain.
MK: Umm..
JW: why not?
MK: They won’t necessarily all reach.. I guess.. it depends.. I don’t think that if the same people look at every single piece of data , that it only has one single answer or one explanation.
JW: Even if they are working together?
MK: Even if they are working together.
JW: Okay. Just.. you said, no, but, I wanted a little more explanation. So, what about peer pressure?
MK:<mummle> well, we’d like to think that <mummle>influence, <mummle>
JW:<laugh>
MK: well, you know, if I were a P.H.D. candidate , and my advisor said this was ad, <mummle> Then I would say, ya, that’s <something>
JW: You wouldn’t argue.
MK: No, not if I was trying to get my degree.. <laugh>
JW:<laugh> Now that’s interesting. What if he wants you to argue and isn’t telling you?
MK:<pause> well ,that’s true.
JW: Okay. So, there might be instances where you would agree, but wouldn’t believe in d<something>. You would agree because “I want to graduate, I don’t really believe you.” So, you’re still saying no.
MK: Ya, they do not all have to come to the same conclusion.
JW: They may influence each other in some way.
MK: They influence each other …mumble>
JW: Some body may even lie in order to graduate.
<pause>
MK:<laugh>
JW:<laugh>Is that what I heard you say?
MK: <laugh>
JW: Ahh.. “What does the term data mean in astronomy?” You said, “information that is collected.” I wanna know what information is collected What are you talking about? What kind of information?
MK: Measurements.
JW: Measurements.
MK: Parsecs. Temperatures of stars. Colors of stars. Luminosity.
JW: Color…luminosity. So ,that’s what kinda information? Okay.
“Is data the same of different from evidence?” You said , “Data is more quantifiable, evidence is past, I.E., something happened, we did not see it happen, we know it happened.” You gave an example of craters on the moon. Sure, we’ve never actually seen a crater form on the moon.
MK: Right.
JW: But, we know it happened in the past.
MK: We can probably explain how it happened because we have evidence
JW: Okay. What’s the data?
MK: The data would be, the number that are there, the sizes of them, the age of them. <mummle>
JW: Can data provide evidence for current events? Does it have to be in the past?
MK: <mummle>
JW: It can’
MK: Doesn’t have to be.
JW: Okay, so, it can.. be… current. Have you got some example, possibly?
MK: of current evidence?
JW: Of something current for which there is evidence. Before, you were implying that it always happened in the past.
MK: Oh, okay.
JW: And, since we didn’t actually see it…
MK: ummm.. the universe is expanding.
JW: Okay.
MK: We are measuring.. Doppler shifts. The dopler shift is the data. The evidence is <mummle>
<pause>
JW: dopler shift.. So, that is evidence for the expansion. Or that evidence is the expansion? How do you want to say that?
MK: Umm.. that data is the evidence for.. expansion.
JW: Okay. So, measurements like Doppler shifts is data, and evidence?
MK: Yeah.
JW: And evidence for expansion. Okay. Last question. “What is astronomical data analysis?” You said, “Reviewing and comparing data collection.” At that time, what were you thinking about comparing data, collecting?
MK: Umm.. Taking all your measurements, and putting them into charts, graphs, visuals, running calculations.
JW: Okay, making charts, graphs, calculations. Okay. And then, “what’s involved in astronomical data analysis?” What were you questioning? The fact that it’s almost the same question again? <laugh>
MK: Well, I just didn’t.. I just didn’t know anything.
JW: Okay, so, you had no clue at that time what’s involved in doing astronomical data analysis. Okay. Great. I didn’t figure most people would. Since most of you haven’t done astronomy. Alright, fantastic. Thank you.
Tape ends.
1