Challenge Thread: Were you wrong about Pluto?

[Larniavc]

It's not like they would advertise it.

So you're saying the change from planet to planetoid was down to a Big Text Book grift?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're saying the change from planet to planetoid was down to a Big Text Book grift?

As I said: "just asking."

 

[mindlight]

In another thread, someone made this comment:
If this is your sentiment as well, were you wrong about Pluto being our ninth planet?

I do not believe that there is a scientific case for macro- evolution, abiogenesis and all that but I did think that Pluto was the ninth planet for a long time. I voted no above because this was all a matter of definitions of what a planet was and a result of ignorance of what was out there. So Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet. Given the evidence of the time it was consistent to argue that Pluto was a planet. Now it is not. Empirically we knew that Pluto was out there and that it looked like a planet. That has not changed but our definitions have.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not believe that there is a scientific case for macro- evolution, abiogenesis and all that but I did think that Pluto was the ninth planet for a long time. I voted no above because this was all a matter of definitions of what a planet was and a result of ignorance of what was out there. So Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet. Given the evidence of the time it was consistent to argue that Pluto was a planet. Now it is not. Empirically we knew that Pluto was out there and that it looked like a planet. That has not changed but our definitions have.

This sounds like you're applying situation ethics to justify an error in science that lasted over a quarter of a century.

 

[mindlight]

This sounds like you're applying situation ethics to justify an error in science that lasted over a quarter of a century.

It is not any kind of ethical at all as it is morally irrelevant whether Pluto is a planet or not. But the model relied on less evidence than we have now and the conclusion can be revised as has the definition of a planet. Pluto is still a planet by the old definition.

Given there is NO evidence for abiogenesis and only misinterpreted evidence for macro evolution there is no equivalence here between the two issues.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the model relied on less evidence than we have now and the conclusion can be revised as has the definition of a planet.

Sounds like someone goofed to me.

I'm glad they fixed it; but it's still probably wrong, and we won't know it yet for another 76 years or so (if you know what I'm saying).

Nebraska Man took five years before they realized they were wrong.

Thalidomide took nine months before they realized they were wrong (assuming it wasn't on purpose).

And Challenger only took 72 seconds.

 

[mindlight]

Sounds like someone goofed to me.

I'm glad they fixed it; but it's still probably wrong, and we won't know it yet for another 76 years or so (if you know what I'm saying).

Nebraska Man took five years before they realized they were wrong.

Thalidomide took nine months before they realized they were wrong (assuming it wasn't on purpose).

And Challenger only took 72 seconds.

I do not get why you have to be anti science. I believe in miracles AND the scientific method. These have never come into conflict in my experience. I reject a false view of science that says you can argue stuff you cannot prove as being scientific. But I do not reject good science. So it is not them v us it is us v bad unprovable science.

It was OK to say Pluto looked like a planet. But then working out how big it was and finding other comparable dwarf planets changed all that and meant a more accurate model. Yes we were all wrong to call Pluto a planet but so what. Now we simply know better and that progress is not a problem.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

This sounds like you're applying situation ethics to justify an error in science that lasted over a quarter of a century.

That you seem to find this an example of situational ethics says more about the absurdity of your position than anything else, but then that is your deliberate position.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Sounds like someone goofed to me.

I'm glad they fixed it; but it's still probably wrong, and we won't know it yet for another 76 years or so (if you know what I'm saying).

Nebraska Man took five years before they realized they were wrong.

Thalidomide took nine months before they realized they were wrong (assuming it wasn't on purpose).

And Challenger only took 72 seconds.

So you expect science to be infallible, but at the same time where was the KJV argument that we should not launch Challenger? This has gotten stale.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was OK to say Pluto looked like a planet.

Watering it down, are you?

In all my years in school, I never once heard that Pluto "looked like a planet."

They always said Pluto "is a planet."

And if you said otherwise on a test, they marked it: WRONG.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Watering it down, are you?

In all my years in school, I never once heard that Pluto "looked like a planet."

They always said Pluto "is a planet."

And if you said otherwise on a test, they marked it: WRONG.

IAU comes up with a definition of planet which you don't like - "it's the devil's work". Notice how you refuse to accept there was no definition before 2006 as that would mean you are wrong in your whinging.

Senior Managers make a decision - blame the lowly scientists who advised against that decision. Again, you refuse to accept that Senior Managers outrank lowly scientific advisers. Which is a remarkably odd line to espouse for somebody who claims to have served in the military.

 

[AV1611VET]

IAU comes up with a definition of planet which you don't like - "it's the devil's work".

I can't stress enough how wrong you are.

If the IAU came up with a definition I did like, and one that even included Pluto as a planet -- meaning Pluto wasn't demoted -- I'd still be railing against they rigging a vote.

It's not what they did, so much as how they did it.

If they want to rename a crater on the moon, that's fine with me.

Rename it.

But if they rig a vote to rename that crater, then I'm going to rail against it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I can't stress enough how wrong you are.

If the IAU came up with a definition I did like, and one that even included Pluto as a planet -- meaning Pluto wasn't demoted -- I'd still be railing against they rigging a vote.

It's not what they did, so much as how they did it.

If they want to rename a crater on the moon, that's fine with me.

Rename it.

But if they rig a vote to rename that crater, then I'm going to rail against it.

So why do you keep saying it's a problem with science?

I have no problem with you railing against humans being human. I don't like your dishonest pretence that science has been responsible for your bugbears. Knowingly telling lies is a very unchristian activity.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no problem with you railing against humans being human.

Is that what you call a rigged vote? "humans being human"?

Can't you be a little more specific in this case? like "scientists being crooked"?

 

[SelfSim]

Is that what you call a rigged vote? "humans being human"?

Can't you be a little more specific in this case? like "scientists being crooked"?

I'm a bit late to this rather silly thread, but what exactly is, (or what do you mean by) a 'rigged vote'?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm a bit late to this rather silly thread, but what exactly is, (or what do you mean by) a 'rigged vote'?

QV please:

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 note: The vote to demote Pluto was rigged

 

[SelfSim]

QV please:
Also note: The vote to demote Pluto was rigged

Thanks. I'll go with not 'rigged':

Jean-Luc Margot | UCLA:

Should we be concerned about the voting process?
The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of those in attendance, following the protocol in place for all IAU resolutions. As polling experts will tell you, polling the IAU assembly (over 400 present) captured the desire of the entire IAU membership (about 9,000 members) with a confidence interval better than 5%. Because the meeting had many scientific sessions, including sessions on the physical properties of asteroids, it was well attended by geophysicists and dynamicists alike, and there is no reason to believe that the voters did not form a representative sample of the entire IAU membership. The schedule for the discussions and vote had been well advertised. Any IAU member who had an interest in this issue was welcome to participate in the discussions and vote. Some people who did not vote have questioned the validity of the vote. If you did not bother to vote about an issue that you care so deeply about, are you entitled to complain about the outcome of the vote?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks. I'll go with not 'rigged':

Jean-Luc Margot | UCLA:

Like the doctor said: "suture self".

 

[sjastro]

I'm a bit late to this rather silly thread, but what exactly is, (or what do you mean by) a 'rigged vote'?

As a human interest story it was Lars Lindberg Christensen from IAU who was given the responsibility of communicating the decision of demoting Pluto's planet status to the public.
It was also Lars who organized the evaluation by ESO of a mathematical imaging process I developed for enhancing detail in astronomical images.
Rather than the crass portrayal of the IAU in this thread kudos to them for getting a communication channel established between a rank amateur astronomer like myself and professional astronomers from ESO.

 

[dlamberth]

Jean-Luc Margot | UCLA:

Thanks for the article. It filled in a lot of the information that we were missing in this thread.