The Pluto Issue

[AV1611VET]

And this would be a problem, why?
So they made a boo-boo by calling it a planet in the first place, and now they are left scratching their heads as to what to do about it now?

It's okay for them to do that with evolution though.

They started out with these giants they called 'terrible lizards'; but when much smaller ones were found, instead of plutoing the giant ones, they just incorporate the small ones into their data banks.

I suspect this is for two reasons:

1. They're desperate to close the gap between all these species.
2. They want to inundate those who are skeptical of evolution with 'valid evidence'.

 

[Psudopod]

It's just that any definition including Pluto ends up including thousands of other astronomical bodies out there, and thus you end up with thousands of planets in the solar system. You'd struggle to come up with a memorable mnemonic for all of those, don't you think!
So they made a boo-boo by calling it a planet in the first place, and now they are left scratching their heads as to what to do about it now?

Who's scratching their head? The decision's been made remember. And yes, at the time of the discovery of pluto, I doubt anyone gave any thought to the implications for other bodies in orbit around the sun. (Maybe they did, I don't know.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Well done, AV, army of one, as usual.

No, Cabal --- I've got California, New Mexico, and Illinois behind me on this one.

 

[Psudopod]

It's okay for them to do that with evolution though.

They started out with these giants they called 'terrible lizards'; but when much smaller ones were found, instead of plutoing the giant ones, they just incorporate the small ones into their data banks.

I suspect this is for two reasons:
They're desperate to close the gap between all these species.
They want to inundate those who are skeptical of evolution with 'valid evidence'.

But dinosaur is a common term, it's not scientific nomenclature. Yes, the common term could have been changed, and you'd have some people agreeing with it and some people disagreeing with it. But changing the name wouldn't have changed any of our understanding of dinosaurs big and small, or their evolution.

We can't force the gap between species closer, we can only look at the evidence, phyiscal and genetic to see if we can work out where on the tree of life they were. It's a bit like a big jigsaw puzzle when you don't know how many pieces you should have, let alone if you have them all. Sometimes there is going to disagreement, because pieces can be very similar in shape, and sometimes it's only when you find the next piece do you realise that you've got the first one slightly out. None of this affects the big picture though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who's scratching their head?

Publishing companies, writers of dictionaries, writers of encyclopedias, those who purchased (or built) models of the solar system, and anyone else I may have left out.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Publishing companies, writers of dictionaries, writers of encyclopedias, those who purchased (or built) models of the solar system, and anyone else I may have left out.

They'll change to fit the new definition. The world moves on, other than you it seems.

 

[AV1611VET]

But dinosaur is a common term...

So was 'planet', but they took the initiative to rewrite a definition to include the new criteria generated by this debate.

We can't force the gap between species closer...

I disagree.

That 'gap' is only on paper --- it is software.

And just like they date fossils by the rock strata, and the rock strata by the fossils, data can be manipulated likewise.

I'm getting that feeling inside that's telling me to /thread-out before I say something I'm going to regret.

I really need to work on my patience with discussing science with you people, as I am a fish out of water and can't handle it.

It's like a foreign language to me.

 

[Cabal]

No, Cabal --- I've got California, New Mexico, and Illinois behind me on this one.

My bad.

You're wrong in good company, then.

So do you know why they're against the redefinition besides "muuuuh noooo it's a planet!!!!1"

Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon to justify your usual antiscience prejudice?

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod
We can't force the gap between species closer...
I disagree.

That 'gap' is only on paper --- it is software.

No, it's not. Especially with the advances we have made with genetics, we can really see it's not. It's like a really, really big family tree.

And just like they date fossils by the rock strata, and the rock strata by the fossils, data can be manipulated likewise.

But that's not how it actually happens. That's just how professional creationists want you think it happens so you'll believe that all evolutionists are so blinded by preconceptions that they couldn't spot an obvious logic fail.

I'm getting that feeling inside that's telling me to /thread-out before I say something I'm going to regret.

I really need to work on my patience with discussing science with you people, as I am a fish out of water and can't handle it.

It's like a foreign language to me.

I don't think it is. You obviously understand many aspects, and you do listen and learn from people on here. But I think you do also recognise that only accepting some bits of science is going to give you some brain teasers - if it works here, why doesn't it work there. You recognise there's a problem, but can't accept what the problem actually is.

If you are going to /thread, so be it, but thanks for discussion so far.

 

[Cabal]

It's okay for them to do that with evolution though.

They started out with these giants they called 'terrible lizards'; but when much smaller ones were found, instead of plutoing the giant ones, they just incorporate the small ones into their data banks.

I suspect this is for two reasons:

1. They're desperate to close the gap between all these species.
2. They want to inundate those who are skeptical of evolution with 'valid evidence'.

Or....the fact that dinosaurs don't have to be huge?

There was similarity, hence there was no need for plutoing.

Fish out of water is right.....

 

[Tiberius]

Actually, Cabal hit the nail right on the head with his first sentence in Post 3.

But --- believe it or not --- I have another major issue with this Pluto thing.

Here on CF, from the posts I read, I noticed that the reclassification of Pluto was accepted automatically, with 100% agreement.

That's "automatic" --- and --- "100% agreement".

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was, "Yup. That's why they can't understand anything past Genesis 1."

You guys read, for example, that there's all sorts of contradictions involving what happened on Resurrection morning, and hey, that's good enough. As long as I read somewhere that the Gospel accounts contradict each other, that's good enough for me!

Then they come here and spout that, and someone tries to explain it, even in detail, and it becomes a finger-in-my-ears-I'm-not-interested-it's-a-pratt-and-please-go-away moment.

There's just no getting through to someone who has that kind of brick-wall mentality.

You guys complain that the books of the Bible were settled on by some council that voted on what books to include, and what books to exclude.

"Complain", I said.

Then you turn around and think it should be an automatic and 100% fact that Pluto is now a dwarf planet.

Why? Because a much smaller "council" voted on it!

Everything you guys have ever accused us of doing, you end up doing yourselves.

If you think science is decided by a majority vote, then you're doing it wrong.

 

[laurele]

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.


The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.


Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.

 

[laurele]

One argument often used in favor of demoting Pluto is the fact that another planet was discovered beyond Pluto and that with many more possible small planets in the Kuiper Belt, we could end up with "too many planets" in our solar system. Well, there is no such thing as too many planets. At one point, we thought Jupiter had four moons. Now we know it has 63, and more may be found. Should we limit the number of moons because otherwise, there will be too many to memorize? Should we limit the number of elements in the Periodic Table because kids won't be able to memorize that many? The fact is, memorization is not a very useful learning tool. At one point, we knew little more about the planets than their names and order from the Sun. That is not true today. It is more important that kids understand what distinguishes the different types of planets.

If we use the alternate, broader term that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star--which many planetary scientists prefer over the IAU definition--we can then use subcategories to distinguish the types of planets. While we previously recognized two subcategories, the terrestrials and the gas giants or jovians, the new discoveries show us there is a third class-the dwarf planets. These are planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium--but of the dwarf subcategory because they are not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. In fact, Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet," never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. If this one area is amended so the IAU resolution establishes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, much of the controversy would evaporate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists.

Excellent post, laurele!

I was hoping a real astronomer would show up and say something.

I get tired of armchair astronomers arguing this point.

I don't know much science myself, but I get suspicious when a biologist starts talking about plate tectonics, or a geologist talks about biology.

It just doesn't set right with me; and it comes across as an attitude of 'Since I have a PhD in chemistry, I'm qualified to talk about astronomy.'

 

[laurele]

Excellent post, laurele!

I was hoping a real astronomer would show up and say something.

I get tired of armchair astronomers arguing this point.

I don't know much science myself, but I get suspicious when a biologist starts talking about plate tectonics, or a geologist talks about biology.

It just doesn't set right with me; and it comes across as an attitude of 'Since I have a PhD in chemistry, I'm qualified to talk about astronomy.'

Thank you. I will admit I'm not a PhD, but I am an amateur astronomer and a student in the Masters in astronomy program at Swinburne University.

Planetary science does involve chemistry, geology and biology (at least when in studying Earth), so scientists interested in this field should know something about each of these. One of the issues with the IAU vote is that most who voted are not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers entirely, ones who study galaxies, black holes, dark matter, cosmology, radio astronomy, etc. This means those who decided on the new definition are largely people who do not study planets! Planetary science, especially as it concerns objects beyond Earth, is a relatively new science, having benefitted heavily from our robotic explorations of the moon and solar system over the last 50 years. Many planetary scientists are not IAU members and therefore have no say about definition of terms in their own field. There is some talk about forming a separate planetary society organization, but it has not yet been done. The field is still considered by many to be in its infancy.

 

[Cabal]

Excellent post, laurele!

I was hoping a real astronomer would show up and say something.

I get tired of armchair astronomers arguing this point.

I don't know much science myself, but I get suspicious when a biologist starts talking about plate tectonics, or a geologist talks about biology.

It just doesn't set right with me; and it comes across as an attitude of 'Since I have a PhD in chemistry, I'm qualified to talk about astronomy.'

We have this little trick called reading, AV.*

Try it sometime.

*It's not like your objections to science are so advanced we have to read that much, either.

 

[Cabal]

One argument often used in favor of demoting Pluto is the fact that another planet was discovered beyond Pluto and that with many more possible small planets in the Kuiper Belt, we could end up with "too many planets" in our solar system. Well, there is no such thing as too many planets. At one point, we thought Jupiter had four moons. Now we know it has 63, and more may be found. Should we limit the number of moons because otherwise, there will be too many to memorize? Should we limit the number of elements in the Periodic Table because kids won't be able to memorize that many? The fact is, memorization is not a very useful learning tool. At one point, we knew little more about the planets than their names and order from the Sun. That is not true today. It is more important that kids understand what distinguishes the different types of planets.

If we use the alternate, broader term that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star--which many planetary scientists prefer over the IAU definition--we can then use subcategories to distinguish the types of planets. While we previously recognized two subcategories, the terrestrials and the gas giants or jovians, the new discoveries show us there is a third class-the dwarf planets. These are planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium--but of the dwarf subcategory because they are not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. In fact, Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet," never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. If this one area is amended so the IAU resolution establishes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, much of the controversy would evaporate.

This is all fine, but I think most people are mainly encouraging the move to standardise the definition. Of course it should be done so that it is practical for people doing planetary research, and I have no issues with it being amended.

The overarching point of AV's meme falls flat though, as defining scientific terminology is pretty much independent from the actual conclusions and observations science draws. Suddenly calling Pluto a dwarf planet whereas previously calling it a planet doesn't magically change its orbital period, for example.

 

[LightHorseman]

http://img175.imageshack.us/i/planethood20for20pluto.jpg/

 

[Tinker Grey]

I like the "Dignity for Uranus" sign.

 

[LightHorseman]

Just for sake of full disclosure, I edited the cartoon slightly, the original uses a different word in the "you mess with Pluto" baloon, but I believe the meaning and tone of the original is sufficiently conveyed.