[Paper Review] Can Remote Observing be Good Observing? Reflections on Procrustes and Antaeus

Felix J. Lockman|arXiv (Cornell University)|Jul 6, 2005

Historical Geography and Cartography2 references3 citations

TL;DR

This paper argues that remote observing, while convenient, risks undermining the human elements essential to high-quality astronomy—particularly responsibility, hands-on expertise, and intellectual vitality. Drawing on the myths of Procrustes (who forced others to fit his standards) and Antaeus (who gained strength from contact with the earth), the author warns that excessive abstraction from the telescope can weaken astronomers’ engagement and accountability, advocating instead for remote observing that enhances, rather than replaces, the observer’s presence and agency at the telescope.

ABSTRACT

Remote observing seeks to simulate the presence of the astronomer at the telescope. While this is useful, and necessary in some circumstances, simulation is not reality. The drive to abstract the astronomer from the instrument can have unpleasant consequences, some of which are prefigured in the ancient tales of Procrustes and Antaeus. This article, written in 1992 for a conference proceedings on remote observing, is reprinted here with only slight editorial changes and the addition of a short Afterword. I consider some of the human factors involved in remote observing, and suggest that our aim be to enhance rather than supplant the astronomer at the telescope.

Motivation & Objective

• To examine the human and ethical dimensions of remote observing in astronomy, beyond technical feasibility.
• To question whether remote observing truly enhances scientific quality or instead erodes the observer’s responsibility and connection to data.
• To highlight the dangers of over-automating observatory operations, where the astronomer becomes a passive data consumer rather than an active participant.
• To advocate for remote observing systems that support, rather than supplant, the observer’s role at the telescope.
• To draw on classical myths to frame the risks of abstraction and disconnection in scientific practice.

Proposed method

• Uses narrative and metaphor from classical mythology—specifically Procrustes and Antaeus—to frame ethical and psychological concerns in remote observing.
• Analyzes the role of personal responsibility in observational astronomy, emphasizing that only humans can be held accountable for data quality.
• Contrasts the experience of on-site observing, where the astronomer is directly involved in data acquisition and decision-making, with remote observing, where this connection is fragmented.
• Examines real-world examples, such as the Westerbork telescope, where remote observers receive calibrated data without involvement in the observing process.
• Compares the intellectual and emotional engagement of on-site observing with the potential detachment of remote operation.
• Proposes that observatory design should prioritize enhancing the observer’s role, not merely enabling remote access.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 What constitutes 'good observing' in observational astronomy, and how does remote observing affect this standard?
• RQ2 To what extent does remote observing compromise the astronomer’s responsibility for data quality and interpretation?
• RQ3 How does physical presence at the telescope contribute to the intellectual and ethical integrity of astronomical research?
• RQ4 In what ways can automation and remote systems inadvertently weaken the observer’s connection to the data and the scientific process?
• RQ5 How can remote observing be designed to support, rather than replace, the active, responsible role of the astronomer?

Key findings

• Remote observing risks creating a split between the data producer (the observing specialist) and the data consumer (the astronomer), undermining accountability for data quality.
• The astronomer who is not present at the telescope may lack the confidence or expertise to vouch for the correctness of the data, especially regarding subtle details like contour levels or calibration artifacts.
• The myth of Procrustes illustrates the danger of forcing astronomers into a one-size-fits-all remote observing model that distorts their role and responsibilities.
• The myth of Antaeus shows that astronomers derive intellectual and emotional strength from direct, hands-on engagement with the telescope and the observing environment.
• Over-reliance on remote systems can transform astronomers into passive consumers of data, weakening their engagement and diminishing their scientific agency.
• The most effective remote observing systems should be designed to enhance, not replace, the observer’s presence and responsibility at the telescope.