David A.J. Seargent – författare

Naked-eye comets are far from uncommon. As a rough average, one appears every 18 months or thereabouts, and it is not very unusual to see more than two in a single year. The record so far seems to have been 2004, with a total of five comets visible without optical aid. But 2006, 1970, and 1911 were not far behind with a total of four apiece. Yet, the majority of these pass unnoticed by the general public. Most simply look like fuzzy stars with tails that are either faint or below the naked-eye threshold. The ‘classical’ comet – a bright star-like object with a long flowing tail – is a sight that graces our skies about once per decade, on average. These ‘great comets’ are surely among the most beautiful objects that we can see in the heavens, and it is no wonder that they created such fear in earlier times. Just what makes a comet ‘‘great’’ is not easy to define. It is neither just about brightness nor only a matter of size. Some comets can sport prodigiously long tails and yet not be regarded as great. Others can become very bright, but hardly anyone other than a handful of enthusiastic astronomers will ever see them. Much depends on their separation from the Sun, the intensity of the tail, and so forth.

Naked-eye comets are far from uncommon. As a rough average, one appears every 18 months or thereabouts, and it is not very unusual to see more than two in a single year. The record so far seems to have been 2004, with a total of five comets visible without optical aid. But 2006, 1970, and 1911 were not far behind with a total of four apiece. Yet, the majority of these pass unnoticed by the general public. Most simply look like fuzzy stars with tails that are either faint or below the naked-eye threshold. The ‘classical’ comet – a bright star-like object with a long flowing tail – is a sight that graces our skies about once per decade, on average. These ‘great comets’ are surely among the most beautiful objects that we can see in the heavens, and it is no wonder that they created such fear in earlier times. Just what makes a comet ‘‘great’’ is not easy to define. It is neither just about brightness nor only a matter of size. Some comets can sport prodigiously long tails and yet not be regarded as great. Others can become very bright, but hardly anyone other than a handful of enthusiastic astronomers will ever see them. Much depends on their separation from the Sun, the intensity of the tail, and so forth.

Weird Astronomy appeals to all who are interested in unusual celestial phenomena, whether they be amateur or professional astronomers or science buffs who just enjoy reading of odd coincidences, unexplained observations, and reports from space probes that "don’t quite fit." This book relates a variety of "unusual" astronomical observations – unusual in the sense of refusing to fit easily into accepted thinking, or unusual in the observation having been made under difficult or extreme circumstances. Although some of the topics covered are instances of "bad astronomy," most are not. Some of the observations recorded here have actually turned out to be important scientific breakthroughs.Included are some amusing anecdotes (such as the incident involving "potassium flares" in ordinary stars and the story of Abba 1, the solar system’s own flare star!), but the book’s purpose is not to ridicule those who report anomalous observations, nor is it to challenge scientific orthodoxy. It is more to demonstrate how what's "weird" often turns out to be far more significant than observations of what we expect to see.

Weird Astronomy appeals to all who are interested in unusual celestial phenomena, whether they be amateur or professional astronomers or science buffs who just enjoy reading of odd coincidences, unexplained observations, and reports from space probes that "don’t quite fit." This book relates a variety of "unusual" astronomical observations – unusual in the sense of refusing to fit easily into accepted thinking, or unusual in the observation having been made under difficult or extreme circumstances. Although some of the topics covered are instances of "bad astronomy," most are not. Some of the observations recorded here have actually turned out to be important scientific breakthroughs.Included are some amusing anecdotes (such as the incident involving "potassium flares" in ordinary stars and the story of Abba 1, the solar system’s own flare star!), but the book’s purpose is not to ridicule those who report anomalous observations, nor is it to challenge scientific orthodoxy. It is more to demonstrate how what''s "weird" often turns out to be far more significant than observations of what we expect to see.

by D. M. Armstrong In the history of the discussion of the problem of universals, G. F. Stout has an honoured, and special. place. For the Nominalist, meaning by that term a philosopher who holds that existence of repeatables - kinds, sorts, type- and the indubitable existence of general terms, is a problem. The Nominalist's opponent, the Realist, escapes the Nominalist's difficulty by postulating universals. He then faces difficulties of his own. Is he to place these universals in a special realm? Or is he to bring them down to earth: perhaps turning them into repeatable properties of particulars (universalia in res), and repeatable relations between universals (universalia inter res)? Whichever solution he opts for, there are well-known difficulties about how particulars stand to these universals. Under these circumstances the Nominalist may make an important con­ cession to the Realist, a concession which he can make without abandoning his Nominalism. He may concede that metaphysics ought to recognize that particulars have properties (qualities, perhaps) and are related by relations. But, he can maintain, these properties and relations are particulars, not universals. Nor, indeed, is such a position entirely closed to the Realist. A Realist about universals may, and some Realists do, accept particularized properties and relations in addition to universals. As Dr. Seargent shows at the beginning of his book. a doctrine of part­ icularized properties and relations has led at least a submerged existence from Plato onwards. The special, classical.

by D. M. Armstrong In the history of the discussion of the problem of universals, G. F. Stout has an honoured, and special. place. For the Nominalist, meaning by that term a philosopher who holds that existence of repeatables - kinds, sorts, type- and the indubitable existence of general terms, is a problem. The Nominalist''s opponent, the Realist, escapes the Nominalist''s difficulty by postulating universals. He then faces difficulties of his own. Is he to place these universals in a special realm? Or is he to bring them down to earth: perhaps turning them into repeatable properties of particulars (universalia in res), and repeatable relations between universals (universalia inter res)? Whichever solution he opts for, there are well-known difficulties about how particulars stand to these universals. Under these circumstances the Nominalist may make an important con­ cession to the Realist, a concession which he can make without abandoning his Nominalism. He may concede that metaphysics ought to recognize that particulars have properties (qualities, perhaps) and are related by relations. But, he can maintain, these properties and relations are particulars, not universals. Nor, indeed, is such a position entirely closed to the Realist. A Realist about universals may, and some Realists do, accept particularized properties and relations in addition to universals. As Dr. Seargent shows at the beginning of his book. a doctrine of part­ icularized properties and relations has led at least a submerged existence from Plato onwards. The special, classical.