Part of the ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE LIBRARY book series (ASSL, volume 343)


Astronomers have to gain three types of knowledge: information, skills and wisdom. Amateurs can gain aspects of this knowledge as well, but they are not subjected to the kind of peer review experienced by professionals. Astronomers increasingly collaborate with other disciplines on the development of new instruments, which calls for interactional expertise. Examples are drawn from the history of astronomy, from the own experience as an amateur, and from recent developments like the Hub-ble Space Telescope.


Solar System Mental Model Radio Source Hubble Space Telescope Trading Zone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aguirre, E.L. 2004 (June), Unraveling the mystery of McNeil’s nebula Sky & Telescope 107, 114–117.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belkora, L. 2003, Minding the heavens: The story of our discovery of the Milky Way, Inst. Phys. Publ., Bristol.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaisson, E. 1994, The Hubble wars : astrophysics meets astropolitics in the two billion dollar struggle over the Hubble Space Telescope, HarperCollins Publ., New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins, H.M. & Evans, R. 2002, The third wave of science studies, Social Studies of Science 32(2), 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conant, J. 2002, Tuxedo Park: A Wall Street tycoon and the secret palace of science that changed the course of World War II, Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Croswell, K. 1997, Planet Quest: The epic discovery of alien solar systems, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doel, R.E. 1996, Solar system astronomy in America: Communities, patronage, and interdisciplinary research, 1920–1960, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunbar, K. 1995, How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories, in The nature of insight, Eds. R.J. Sternberg & J. Davidson, MIT Press, Canbridge MA, pp. 365–396.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edge, D.O. & Mulkay, M.J. 1976, Astronomy transformed : the emergence of radio astronomy in Britain. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galison, P. 1997, Image & logic: A material culture of microphysics, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gooding, D. 1990, Experiment and the Making of Meaning: Human Agency in Scientific Observation and Experiment, Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gorman, M.E. 1992, Simulating Science: Heuristics, Mental Models and Technoscienti fic Thinking, Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gorman, M.E. 1995, Confirmation, Disconfirmation and Invention: The Case of Alexander Graham Bell and the Telephone, Thinking and Reasoning I(1), 31–53.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorman, M.E. 1998, Transforming nature: Ethics, invention and design, Kluwer Academic Publ., Boston.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grunsfeld, J.M. 2002 (March), Remaking Hubble, Sky & Telescope 103, 30–33.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoskin, M. 2005 (May), Astronomy’s matriarch, Sky & Telescope 109, 42–47.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoyt, W.G. 1976, Lowell and Mars, Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuhn, T.S. 1957, The Copernican Revolution, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lambert, M.H. & Shaw, B. 2002, Transactive Memory and Exception Handling in High-Performance Project Teams, CIFE Techn. Rep. 137, Stanford Univ., Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Langley, P., Simon, H.A., Bradshaw, G.L. & Zykow, J.M. 1987, Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCray, P. 2004, Giant telescopes, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Popper, K.R. 1963, Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trickett, S.B., Schunn, C.D. & Trafton, J.G. 2005, Puzzles and peculiarities: How scientist attend to and process anomalies during data analysis, in Scientific and technological thinking Eds. M.E. Gorman, R.D. Tweney, D.C. Gooding & A. Kincannon, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tweney, R.D., Doherty, M.E. & Mynatt, C.R. (Eds.) 1981, On Scientific Thinking, Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering and Applied ScienceUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations