Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you're saying the change from planet to planetoid was down to a Big Text Book grift?It's not like they would advertise it.
As I said: "just asking."So you're saying the change from planet to planetoid was down to a Big Text Book grift?
In another thread, someone made this comment:
If this is your sentiment as well, were you wrong about Pluto being our ninth planet?
This sounds like you're applying situation ethics to justify an error in science that lasted over a quarter of a century.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.
Sounds like someone goofed to me.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.
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.This sounds like you're applying situation ethics to justify an error in science that lasted over a quarter of a century.
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.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.
Watering it down, are you?It was OK to say Pluto looked like a planet.
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.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.
I can't stress enough how wrong you are.IAU comes up with a definition of planet which you don't like - "it's the devil's work".
So why do you keep saying it's a problem with science?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.
Is that what you call a rigged vote? "humans being human"?I have no problem with you railing against humans being human.
I'm a bit late to this rather silly thread, but what exactly is, (or what do you mean by) a 'rigged vote'?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"?
QV please:I'm a bit late to this rather silly thread, but what exactly is, (or what do you mean by) a 'rigged vote'?
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.
Thanks. I'll go with not 'rigged':QV please:
Also note: The vote to demote Pluto was rigged
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?
Like the doctor said: "suture self".
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.I'm a bit late to this rather silly thread, but what exactly is, (or what do you mean by) a 'rigged vote'?
Thanks for the article. It filled in a lot of the information that we were missing in this thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?