Challenge Thread: Were you wrong about Pluto?

[AV1611VET]

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.

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.

 

[sjastro]

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.

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.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to bag the IAU,

I'm not interested in bagging the IAU.

As I said, I only use Pluto as a poster child, because I can't think of a better example.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

'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?

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not interested in bagging the IAU.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

SelfSim, you went from this:

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

To this:

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.

... 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?

 

[SelfSim]

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?

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Like I said: suit yourself.

Just don't expect me to agree with you.

In my (and others') opinion, Pluto got a raw deal.

 

[SelfSim]

In my (and others') opinion, Pluto got a raw deal.

.. because why? Your only answer thus far, is the mantra: 'rigged vote'.

 

[AV1611VET]

.. because why? Your only answer thus far, is the mantra: 'rigged vote'.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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".

 

[AV1611VET]

But they were not a handful of crooks. They were a handful of experts.

Read that slowly.

They put the question to those that understood the problem the best.

Planetary astronomers?

As I read in one article "Would you go to a podiatrist to treat your colon cancer?". Those that best understood the issue ...

Planetary astronomers?

... came up with a working definition of "planet".

Wow. Sounds like you were there too.

It unfortunately for fans of Pluto meant that it was "demoted".

"Fans of Pluto"? LOL

Believe what you want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read that slowly.Planetary astronomers?Planetary astronomers?Wow. Sounds like you were there too."Fans of Pluto"? LOL

Believe what you want.

As to your first line, I am not the one with a reading comprehension problem. I guess that you would go to a podiatrist to get your colon cancer treated.

 

[Kylie]

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.

How exactly do you think Pluto suffered at all by the decision?

If there had been aliens studying Pluto when the decision was made, what change in the readings of Pluto would they have noticed?

 

[SelfSim]

Wow.
...
Okay with you if I agree with them? or should I go with your snap decision otherwise?*

They weren't relevant objective thinkers.

* Remember: you went from 0 to 60 in just 10 posts.

The power of objective thinking .. Wonderfully efficient, wouldn't you say?

 

[AV1611VET]

If there had been aliens studying Pluto when the decision was made, what change in the readings of Pluto would they have noticed?

Post 20 please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Post 20 please.

AV shorthand for "I am still wrong".

 

[Kylie]

Post 20 please.

And what change in the readings of Pluto did Kirk and Spock and the crew of the Enterprise detect in your little scenario?

 

[sjastro]

And what change in the readings of Pluto did Kirk and Spock and the crew of the Enterprise detect in your little scenario?

AV probably thinks Spock and Kirk were real and test pilots on the space shuttle Enterprise.

 

[sjastro]

'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?

The point of contention was this paragraph in the IAU statement.

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.

While the researchers may have been wrong implying they were unethical and misleading the public was over the top and the IAU cancelled the statement.