Talk:Tycho Brahe

I hoped you wouldn't mind my joining in as an author. I moved the derivation of the name to a top section, and would like to see if I can make things read nicely. If you object to any of my edits, please revert them. NancyNancy Sculerati MD 16:30, 3 February 2007 (CST)

redundant observations

This is an odd phrase to my ear, anyway. Is it something that is part of "astronomer talk"? Is there another way to say it? Nancy Sculerati MD 16:34, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Let me answer by quoting from "Planetary astronomy from the Renaissance to the rise of astrophysics", volume 2A of the "General History of Astronomy" published by the International Astronomical Union and the International Union for the History and Philosophy of Science (page 6):

While his results are not especially interesting, his methods certainly are. For, by making - and reporting - seven trials of each element, rather than the single determination that any of his predecessors would have offered, Tycho inaugurated the modern scientific practice of using redundant data and admitting scatter in his results."

James F. Perry 17:57, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Why not put that quote in with a reference? It's clear and interesting.Nancy

Well, I'm not sure the word should even be left in! Let me elaborate. I believe the genesis of this use of the word is quite modern. The first I heard it used in this way was in connection with the space program where it was routinely used to describe the back-up systems which are built into the vehicles. NASA folks talked about "redundant systems" or "built-in redundancy".

However, my dictionary defines the word redundant in terms like superfluous or inessential, and while I have not taken a survey, I doubt that the Shuttle astronauts would regard such systems as being redundant in that sense of the word. Likewise, I am quite sure that Tycho would not have regarded any of his reported observations, all of which were employed in his work, as being "redundant" (again, in the dictionary sense of the word as recalled above). So this use of the word, I believe, is relatively modern and, to my way of thinking, not quite the best novelty.

Still, your question points up one of the values of having many eyes look at an article. I could have read that passage a hundred times and not noticed anything. Bottom line is, I'm not sure what to do. Maybe replace it with "multiple" observations. James F. Perry 14:14, 4 February 2007 (CST)

I'm going to play with it, if you don't mind. As a clinical MD who also did some basic science I would often find that a term like "by standard techniques" would seem very nice to the basic scientits, but would fail to convey much to somebody who did not do lab work in the field. Rather than tightening up the language, I'm suggesting that it's better to actually explain things outright, so that an intelligent layman can really understand. For example, pretend that Leonardo da Vinci appeared before you- able to read modern English, but only words that are not technical. Of course, if you explain a technical term in plain words he will understand right away.. This is not a stupid man, yet he knows nothing of modern astronomy. Can you teach him about it? Nancy Sculerati MD 14:24, 4 February 2007 (CST)