Pluto 2000

[AV1611VET]

... I would not penalize the student unless he/she specifically labeled Pluto as a planet.

In the year 2000?

Did you read the OP?

The student subordinated his belief to the warning given him and put Pluto down as our 9th planet.

And he got an A+.

You would penalize him for that???

 

[OllieFranz]

Because it was called a planet for decades by SCIENTISTS!

Everyone believed the Big Pluto Lie, because the SCIENTISTS said it was a fact!!

Now SCIENTISTS want us to pretend they never told us the Big Pluto Lie as a FACT!!!

Good imitation of an AV sockpuppet, but you forgot the most important part:

"Science can take a hike!"

One thing AV fails to grasp is that the "law" dividing the rocks that orbit the sun into groups by size is arbitrary, and acknowledged to be arbitrary. It is not based on some immutable law of nature.

The first presidential election I voted in was in 1972. I grew up "knowing" I would not be able to vote for president until 1976, since I would not turn 21 until 1974. But then the law dividing eligible voters from those too young to vote was changed, and the boundary was moved to 18.

This change in an arbitrary boundary did not invalidate Law. It did not "shake Law to its roots." It did not uproot what we thought we knew about Law. It did not even "unsettle the delicate balance" in the Law. It was barely a blip in the flow of legal facts and events.

Likewise, moving an arbitrary boundary so that Pluto falls on the other side of it than it did before (and the same boundary also moved in the opposite direction, bypassing two or three former asteroids, the four or so rocks collectively defining a brand new group) does not affect any natural law. Nor does it affect any model (aka theory) of how natural law works on the rocks orbiting the sun.

It did not invalidate Science. It did not "shake Science to its roots." It did not uproot what we thought we knew about Science. It did not even "unsettle the delicate balance" in Science. It was barely a blip in the flow of scientific facts and events.

 

[RickG]

In the year 2000?

Did you read the OP?

The student subordinated his belief to the warning given him and put Pluto down as our 9th planet.

And he got an A+.

You would penalize him for that???

Yeah, I didn't pick up on the year so I'll have to revise my answer.

Revision: At that time I never would have proposed what you suggested. And to emphasize again, I would have given what the student deserved based on what they presented. An "A" would certainly be possible. An "A+" would command extraordinary work and presentation.

 

[CabVet]

In the year 2000?

Did you read the OP?

The student subordinated his belief to the warning given him and put Pluto down as our 9th planet.

And he got an A+.

You would penalize him for that???

You can stop right there. Unsubstantiated "beliefs" are irrelevant in the science classroom. A teacher can only grade his students based on current knowledge.

 

[CabVet]

It's the year 2000.

You are teaching senior level astronomy at a local high school.

You have a student that, for some reason, consistently leaves Pluto out of the picture as one of the nine planets.

The reason he gives for doing so is simply, "I don't know."

The final is coming up, and your students are instructed that they have one week to build a three-dimensional model of the solar system.

You warn your one student that he is entitled to believe that Pluto isn't our ninth planet if he wants to, but he must comply with standard models, or you will have to count it wrong.

He does so, and gets and A+ on the final.

Value question: In your opinion, is he wrong about Pluto?

If the reason he gives for thinking Pluto is not a planet is simply "I don't know", then yes, he is wrong about Pluto. If he said "based on Pluto's mass and orbit, I don't think it is a planet", then he would have been correct even if the teacher had given him an F.

 

[OllieFranz]

Good imitation of an AV sockpuppet, but you forgot the most important part:

One thing AV fails to grasp is that the "law" dividing the rocks that orbit the sun into groups by size is arbitrary, and acknowledged to be arbitrary. It is not based on some immutable law of nature.

The first presidential election I voted in was in 1972. I grew up "knowing" I would not be able to vote for president until 1976, since I would not turn 21 until 1974. But then the law dividing eligible voters from those too young to vote was changed, and the boundary was moved to 18.

This change in an arbitrary boundary did not invalidate Law. It did not "shake Law to its roots." It did not uproot what we thought we knew about Law. It did not even "unsettle the delicate balance" in the Law. It was barely a blip in the flow of legal facts and events.

Likewise, moving an arbitrary boundary so that Pluto falls on the other side of it than it did before (and the same boundary also moved in the opposite direction, bypassing two or three former asteroids, the four or so rocks collectively defining a brand new group) does not affect any natural law. Nor does it affect any model (aka theory) of how natural law works on the rocks orbiting the sun.

It did not invalidate Science. It did not "shake Science to its roots." It did not uproot what we thought we knew about Science. It did not even "unsettle the delicate balance" in Science. It was barely a blip in the flow of scientific facts and events.

BTW --

This is also why attempts to mock the Bible for including whales as "fish" or bats as "birds" or "fowls" usually fails. The Bible is not using Linneaus, who would not have been born for several millenia after Genesis. It is using a different taxonomy which divides animal life into four groups: "fishes" (Aquatic animals), "fowls" or "birds" (Flying animals), "Crawling things" (Invertibrates reptiles and amphibians), and "beasts" (land mammals).

Usually, but not always. Thaumaturgy's use of the comparison in this thread is an appropriate use. It serves to point out the arbitrary nature of taxonomic classifications, and that the system is independent of the arbitrary taxonomies associated with it.

 

[Freodin]

I feel kinda stupid. The best idea my brain can come up with right now is to start moving them back and forth relative to each other, and whichever one zaps you is not the magnet. I somehow think that's not how induction works, though

Can you bend them?

Nope, no bending, just moving and handling them.

It's a little tricky - I remember that I was the only one in my class to solve that problem, and I even got a recommendation for the phrasing of my explanation. I was rather proud of that back then.

Moving the two bars relative to each other and seeing which one attracts the other is the key... but you have to find the correct constallation.

Keeping one still and watching the other "zap" towards it does not work. The immobile magnet will attract the iron with the same force as an immobile iron would attract the magnet. Side to side, end to end... nothing will give you a clue.. always the attractice forces are identical and you cannot identify where they originate.

But there is one configuration that does not yield equal results: put them together in the form of a T. If the crosspiece of that T is the iron, the magnet will attract it, because the magnetic field is strong at the ends of the bar. If the crosspiece is the magnet, it will not attract the iron, because north- and southpole of the magnetic field will cancel out each other in the middle of the magnetic bar.

That's the way scientific education should work. Not have the students regurgitate what they were taught, but to make sure that the students understand what they were taught and can apply it.

In that regard, another anecdote from my beloved physics classes: the topic was thermodynamics, heat, heat transfer, energy transfer and such. The (theoretical) exercise: a cube of ice of this and that measurements was placed on the end of a bar of metal with this or that heat transfer capacities, under the other end a candle was lit, producing so much heat. We were to calculate how long it would take for the ice cube to melt. A simple calculation, requiring the student to understand how much energy was produced, transfered and how much it would take to turn the ice into water.

I did it wrong. I never found where I made the mistake... and I did the exercise several times, because I knew I had it wrong. My ice cube took about four days to melt.

 

[USincognito]

It's 2012 and AV is talking about Pluto.

Someone asks him about Eris, Makemake and Haumea.

He doesn't know what they're talking about.

They then ask him about Charon, Nix and Hydra.

He still doesn't know what they're talking about.

Should anyone take AVs comments about Pluto seriously?

 

[Guy1]

It's 2012 and AV is talking about Pluto.

Someone asks him about Eris, Makemake and Haumea.

He doesn't know what they're talking about.

They then ask him about Charon, Nix and Hydra.

He still doesn't know what they're talking about.

Should anyone take AVs comments about Pluto seriously?

One shouldn't take any of his comments seriously. He'll probably just bring up that disaster that shall not be named, if you respond.

 

[AV1611VET]

One shouldn't take any of his comments seriously. He'll probably just bring up that disaster that shall not be named, if you respond.

Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?

This doosey?

Even before tragedy struck, the command module was criticized for a number of potentially hazardous design flaws, including the use of a more combustible, 100 percent oxygen atmosphere in the cockpit, an escape hatch that opened inward instead of outward, faulty wiring and plumbing, and the presence of flammable material.

SOURCE

 

[Freodin]

Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?

This doosey?


SOURCE

Let me guess... the command module was critizised for all that design flaws by independent fundamental baptists who got their reasons for their crizicism from their literal reading of the Bible!

Or perhaps not?

 

[Split Rock]

Let me guess... the command module was critizised for all that design flaws by independent fundamental baptists who got their reasons for their crizicism from their literal reading of the Bible!

Or perhaps not?

If I remember my revisionist history correctly, The American Society of Creationist Astrophysicist Engineers warned against launching, but were shouted down by the Atheist Scientists of America because they believed in God.

 

[Loudmouth]

In the year 2000?

Did you read the OP?

The student subordinated his belief to the warning given him and put Pluto down as our 9th planet.

And he got an A+.

You would penalize him for that???

If the student did not give a reason for excluding Pluto as a planet. For that reason I would not give an A+. If the student cited specific reasons for not including Pluto as a planet, and that argument was well supported and convincing, then I would give the student an A+.

Do you understand this at all? It is the reasoning that is important, not the word that is used.

 

[Loudmouth]

Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?

This doosey?

Of course, you can not agree with any of those criticisms since they are science based. You told science to take a hike a long time ago, so you can't agree with them now.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the student did not give a reason for excluding Pluto as a planet. For that reason I would not give an A+. If the student cited specific reasons for not including Pluto as a planet, and that argument was well supported and convincing, then I would give the student an A+.

Do you understand this at all? It is the reasoning that is important, not the word that is used.

If you told me to paint a Chess set, and I painted the Kings & Queens on the wrong color, and you asked me why I did that, and I said my dad always set it up that way ... would you count that against me?

 

[AV1611VET]

You told science to take a hike...

All science?

 

[Loudmouth]

All science?

Either the scientific method works or it doesn't. Take your pick.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you told me to paint a Chess set, and I painted the Kings & Queens on the wrong color, and you asked me why I did that, and I said my dad always set it up that way ... would you count that against me?

Yes, because personal preference is not a useful criteria for creating categories.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either the scientific method works or it doesn't. Take your pick.

No, thanks.

I'm asking you if I ever clarified that statement.

Let me give you a little hint: Posts: 2,247,025.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, thanks.

I'm asking you if I ever clarified that statement.

Let me give you a little hint: Posts: 2,247,025.

Perhaps I should mimic one of your better posts . . .

1