On 4 Dec 2006 08:25:21 -0800, "Imran<[email protected]>"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I would like to say to all viewer or reader of either concern or not
>that the Science and
>Astro are different subjects. An Astro works on to view the stars on
>space with or without
>instruments (that I knew and read almost about them) while the
>Scinetiest does not
>forecast without experiments. Am I right or wrong plz do reply once.
>Hence I therefore, need your help and request you to plz let me know
>about an Astro
>that how he reads the stars and also what is different between Astro
In colloquial usage, an "astronomer" may or may not be a scientist.
Scientists seek to understand natural systems by observation and
experiment, and that includes many astronomers, too. (I'm assuming here
that by "astro" you mean "astronomer" and not "astrologer"; if the
latter, then of course that is not a scientist under any circumstances).
An amateur astronomer is one who pursues astronomy outside his usual
vocation, generally without pay. Many amateur astronomers are also
scientific in their approach to the subject. Others are interested in
observing or imaging objects for aesthetic reasons; they can't really be
called scientists (that shouldn't be taken as a criticism, or in any way
as a negative comment.)
BTW, scientists "forecast without experiments" all the time. First you
forecast, and then you attempt to support that by experiment. In some
cases experimentation is impossible (or very difficult), so you try to
support your hypotheses with additional observation. Astronomy is biased
towards observation over experimentation simply because so much it seeks
to study is far away, or involves environmental extremes that are
difficult to mimic in the laboratory. It is no less a "science" for
Chris L Peterson