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.
After a stunt like they pulled in 2006, I'd throw the public a bone too.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.
Only in your mind.After a stunt like they pulled in 2006, I'd throw the public a bone too.
They probably were surprised by the hornet's nest they raised.
In a statement published on October 5, 2020 on the website of the International Astronomical Union's commission F3 on astrobiology, the authors of the September 2020 paper about phosphine were accused of unethical behaviour and criticized for being unscientific and misleading the public.[56] Members of that commission have since distanced themselves from the IAU statement, claiming that it had been published without their knowledge or approval.[57][58] The statement was removed from the IAU website shortly thereafter. The IAU's media contact Lars Lindberg Christensen stated that IAU did not agree with the content of the letter, and that it had been published by a group within the F3 commission, not IAU itself.
I'm not interested in bagging the IAU.If you want to bag the IAU,
'The attack' there seems to have been apparently justified anyway .. given the way the phosphine thing seems to have panned out?Only in your mind.
If you want to bag the IAU, the organization got itself into hot water by attacking the authors who reported the detection of phosphine on Venus suggesting the presence of life.
Sure .. you're only resonating with the trending US political chant/mantra of 'rigged elections' .. which bears no similarities with the IAU Pluto definition exercise, (see the link I posted in post#217 for reasons why).I'm not interested in bagging the IAU.
I'm a bit late to this rather silly thread, but what exactly is, (or what do you mean by) a 'rigged vote'?
... in a manner of just ten posts.Sure .. you're only resonating with the trending US political chant/mantra of 'rigged elections' .. which bears no similarities with the IAU Pluto definition exercise, (see the link I posted in post#217 for reasons why).
The IAU vote had a 5% confidence interval and more than adequate 'due process' discussions amongst objective thinkers .. which demonstrates it as being totally not 'rigged' at all.
The US political chant/mantra is 'rigged elections' .. (which is the exact same phrase you're using) .. which was not applicable in the IAU decision-making process.SelfSim, you went from this:
To this:... in a manner of just ten posts.
First you didn't know a thing about Pluto's rigged vote; then, ten posts later, you're telling me about it's a "trending US political chant/mantra"?
If it was so "trending," how is it you knew nothing about it?
Like I said: suit yourself.The US political chant/mantra is 'rigged elections' .. (which is the exact same phrase you're using) .. which was not applicable in the IAU decision-making process.
Just because a popular chant rolls off the ends of the fingertips easily, does not make it a universal phenomenon wherever a vote is taken .. different processes from different parent populations .. different criteria, etc, etc.
.. because why? Your only answer thus far, is the mantra: 'rigged vote'.In my (and others') opinion, Pluto got a raw deal.
Wow... because why? Your only answer thus far, is the mantra: 'rigged vote'.
But they were not a handful of crooks. They were a handful of experts. They put the question to those that understood the problem the best. As I read in one article "Would you go to a podiatrist to treat your colon cancer?". Those that best understood the issue came up with a working definition of "planet". It unfortunately for fans of Pluto meant that it was "demoted".Wow.
Isn't that good enough to believe a handful of crooks demoted Pluto?
People a lot more knowledgeable than you and I put together say Pluto should still be a planet.
Okay with you if I agree with them? or should I go with your snap decision otherwise?*
* Remember: you went from 0 to 60 in just 10 posts.
Read that slowly.But they were not a handful of crooks. They were a handful of experts.
Planetary astronomers?Subduction Zone said:They put the question to those that understood the problem the best.
Planetary astronomers?Subduction Zone said:As I read in one article "Would you go to a podiatrist to treat your colon cancer?". Those that best understood the issue ...
Wow. Sounds like you were there too.Subduction Zone said:... came up with a working definition of "planet".
"Fans of Pluto"? LOLSubduction Zone said:It unfortunately for fans of Pluto meant that it was "demoted".
Read that slowly.Planetary astronomers?Planetary astronomers?Wow. Sounds like you were there too."Fans of Pluto"? LOL
Believe what you want.
Wow.
Isn't that good enough to believe a handful of crooks demoted Pluto?
People a lot more knowledgeable than you and I put together say Pluto should still be a planet.
Okay with you if I agree with them? or should I go with your snap decision otherwise?*
* Remember: you went from 0 to 60 in just 10 posts.
They weren't relevant objective thinkers.Wow.
...
Okay with you if I agree with them? or should I go with your snap decision otherwise?*
The power of objective thinking .. Wonderfully efficient, wouldn't you say?AV1611VET said:* Remember: you went from 0 to 60 in just 10 posts.
Post 20 please.If there had been aliens studying Pluto when the decision was made, what change in the readings of Pluto would they have noticed?
AV probably thinks Spock and Kirk were real and test pilots on the space shuttle Enterprise.And what change in the readings of Pluto did Kirk and Spock and the crew of the Enterprise detect in your little scenario?
The point of contention was this paragraph in the IAU statement.'The attack' there seems to have been apparently justified anyway .. given the way the phosphine thing seems to have panned out?
I read the other day, (can't find it now), that its been decided that there's just too little atmospheric water for life to exist there, (regardless of the accuracy, or otherwise, of remote spectral detections of phosphine).
I think this was along the same/similar lines as your view, when the phosphine was announced, too?
In this regard, the Commission is concerned with the way the potential detection of phosphine has been covered for the broad audience. It is an ethical duty for any scientist to communicate with the media and the public with great scientific rigor and to be careful not to overstate any interpretation which will be irretrievably picked up by the press and generate great public attention in the case of life beyond Earth. The way results about phosphine were reported lead some news organization to report that evidence for life in Venus was found. The Commission understands that such a reaction by the press would reflect high interest in astrobiology research by the public. Such a report, however, misleads the public, and might be harmful to the advancement of astrobiology research.
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?