Pluto Ain’t A Planet
by tgirschAugust 18th, 2006
Contrary to the new definition the IAU is proposing, which sucks, in my not-so-humble opinion, I’m going to side with Dr. Tyson on this one, and say that Pluto really isn’t a planet. And that further, I think the IAU is caving in to public opinion rather than allowing science to rule the day.
Yes, it’s a semantics issue, but words have meanings, and dammit, semantics are important. And there’s simply no scientific definition of “planet” that allows us to keep the list of planets we’ve come to know and love. None. If approved, the new definition would not only increase the number of “planets” in the solar system to at least twelve, it would also muck with the order. So you can kiss your beloved mnemonic devices goodbye, anyway.
(Side note: I liked the Daily Show’s Colbert’s suggested device the other day: “My Very Educated Mother Just Said “Uh-oh, No Pluto!”)
The truth of the matter is that there’s plenty of evidence that Pluto is a Kuiper belt object (KBO) — basically, a dead comet — and it isn’t even the largest of these, at that. If the IAU membership actually approves this proposed definition, then they’ve essentially said that the opinions of a bunch of third graders are more important than having a coherent, meaningful definition. And that they’d rather cheapen the standard, counting an asteroid and two additional dead comets as “planets,” than admit that they were wrong to have classified Pluto as a planet in the first place.
Sorry, Dawn, but I’m hoping they vote this down.
(Side Note #2: As soon as someone posts tonight’s Colbert appearance by Dr. Tyson on YouTube, I’ll post a link. I’m disappointed that no one has done so already… For now, you can go here and view Pluto Pt. 1 and Pluto Pt. 2)
UPDATE: Go read Tyson’s 1999 essay on why Pluto should not be counted among the planets. I think he makes a pretty good case. Just for spice, Kevin disagrees (although I suspect this is in large part because his wife is hostile to the idea of demoting Pluto, and he values his marriage more than semantics).
Categories: Science, Weekend Flame Bait |
I’ll have to agree with you there. As sentimental as we all are bout Pluto, if it doesn’t meet the qualifications … well out it goes. And being wrong? I don’t really see how that would be an issue, admitting they were wrong. Science has advance since it was first declared a planet to where they now have more information about Pluto.
I can’t make any sense of your position. On the one hand, you write
With the other, you write
So the current definition is unscientific, but replacing it with a scientific one is caving to public opinion?
And I can’t figure this out at all
The new definition is scientific, but also the opinion of a bunch of third graders? What is the coherent, meaningful definition that is being thrown away? A list?
AOG:
Well, the problem is that there’s never really been a scientific definition of “planet.” It’s a non-scientific, informal term. The reason I complain is because the people who defend Pluto’s “planet” status do so by and large for historical and emotional reasons, not scientific ones. I suspect that these people no more want to admit Ceres and Charon as “planets” (which this definition does) than to demote Pluto (which a better definition would do).
I think Tyson’s approach is best, which is to divide solar system objects by type: Terrestrials, asteroids, gas giants, KBOs, comets, Oort cloud objects, etc.
How could these scientists have been wrong? I thought that if a scientist was approved by other scientists and if something is a common belief in the approved scientific community that no one should question their correctness. If you can’t have complete confidence in self-approved scientists in whom can you have confidence?
Fred:
Nice try, but it ain’t over yet. For one thing, the vote hasn’t taken place yet. For another, there’s nothing like a scientific consensus on Pluto’s status as a planet, and it’s been in doubt since at least the 1990s.
Of course, I tried your approach, and consulted the Bible to see what it had to say about Pluto, and according to that tome, Pluto doesn’t even exist. (Oh, and the earth is flat and the Sun orbits around it.)
tg: (Oh, and the earth is flat and the Sun orbits around it.)
Fred: Funny you should mention that. The approved scientists of the day where the ones who thought that was true. You won’t find anything in the Bible about a flat earth. Why would you bring religion into this discussion.
Whether or not Pluto is a planet is a matter of semantics. Pluto is what it is whether or not scientists call it a planet, a moon, an asteroid, or a Walt Disney Dog. Makes no difference to Pluto.
Fred:
Wrong again.
Anyway, of course scientists have been wrong in the past. No surprise there. But as new evidence presents itself, they have a responsibility to correct their mistakes and move forward. And as it turns out, they almost always do. I’m arguing that if they accept the proposed definition of “planet,” they’re failing in that responsibility.
BTW, save you time. I’ve read all the flat earth in the Bible theories and the “circle (orbos)of the earth” explanations. Scholars disagree on the meaning of certain Bible verses. Take your pick.
Fred wrote:”Scholars disagree on the meaning of certain Bible verses.”
So perhaps the Bible is open to interpretation. Does that mean that people like Reinhold Niebuhr, William Sloane Coffin, the Friends, the Unitarians and their ilk could be legitimate Christians after all???
Zing..
J: Unitarians and their ilk could be legitimate Christians after all???
Fred: Do unitarians claim to be Christians?
J: So perhaps the Bible is open to interpretation.
Fred: No one ever said the Bible was not interpreted many ways. However, the fact that it is interpreted many different ways obviously does not mean that every interpretation is correct. Zing.
Fred gets to pick which ones are and which ones are not.
Ted Says:
August 21st, 2006
Fred gets to pick which ones are and which ones are not.
Fred: Does not anyone who “interprets” the Bible do that? Zing…
Fred wrote: “Does not anyone who “interprets” the Bible do that?”
To a degree…one chooses what makes sense to him on a visceral level. Since there is no empirical validation of the world’s hidden mysteries, one has to keep in mind that the next person’s interpretation is just as valid as one’s own. The danger lies in trying to impose one’s view’s on another because he thinks his interpretation is “correct”, be it through military might, political means or schoolyard bullying.
Fred wrote: “However, the fact that it is interpreted many different ways obviously does not mean that every interpretation is correct.”
Why not??? There can’t be many roads to the same destination? Beware the pitfalls of that kind of exclusive thinking, see my comment above.
J: Since there is no empirical validation of the world’s hidden mysteries, one has to keep in mind that the next person’s interpretation is just as valid as one’s own. The danger lies in trying to impose one’s view’s on another because he thinks his interpretation is “correct”,
Fred: If every person’s interpretation is valid, why are you arguing with me about my interpretation? My interpretation is that there are absolutes. Do you believe there are any absolutes?
Obviously, it is illogical to say that every interpretation of the Bible is correct. Many are polar opposites. The only choices are that one is right and the other is wrong or both are wrong.
Fred wrote: “If every person’s interpretation is valid, why are you arguing with me about my interpretation?”
I’m not. I’ll repeat, my point is “The danger lies in trying to impose one’s view’s on another because he thinks his interpretation is “correct”,…” I’m sure you’re convinced your view of the divine is “correct” even though there is no empirical proof of it, that is your perogative. As long as you don’t try to impose your views on other people, there’s no problem.
Janusz, excellent comments above. I would feel secure giving you stewardship of my freedoms.
Pluto is sad:
http://www.comboutique.com/pluto