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.
Basic creationists idea:
If scientists discover they are wrong...
Do you have any relevant point here? Nothing has changed for Pluto, except it's classification as a planet. This has not suddenly changed it's orbit or it's composition. And yes, science textbooks will need to be revised. So?Okie-doke, tell that to the college students going to school next semester, who'll have to buy new science books.
Tell that now to our public schools, whose science books are all out-of-date.
Perhaps. If other evidence shows up that forces us to change the definition of what a planet is again, we will need to change it again. What else should we do, AV? Not change is, while knowing it doesn't work? How does that make sense?And I can't help but to think, that just like eggs causing cancer, then not, then causing cancer again, then not, etc. --- in a couple years (if not sooner), Pluto will be put right back where it has been for the last 76 years.
Fun. Big haha... Kudos..."If" ?????
Haw! haw! haw! haw! haw! --- oh, man --- wheeeeee!
Is this a nitrous oxide moment, or what?
Oh, man!
Okay --- I'm fine --- I'll be alright.
Sorry.
That doesn't mean anything. Scientists have no problem at all with bowing to cultural definitions for introductory science books for unimportant issues. We don't consider it to be a big problem that we aren't telling students the whole story: telling them the whole story would be entirely too complex and just serve to sow confusion. Whether or not Pluto is a planet is not considered important.
You actually believe that it is possible for heat death to occur within our lifetime? As a student of cosmology, I can assure you that this is utterly and completely impossible. What is your evidence for this ridiculous statement?
No they won't, because it doesn't affect anything but a name. It doesn't change anything at all about the content of the text. Hell, I don't think any scientists at all will care if people outside of astronomy continue to call Pluto a planet. It doesn't change anything.
Two things:Then why did they start now? Why all the hullabaloo, all of a sudden?
If this has been a secret scientists have known and kept quiet for 76 years, what prompted the "leak"?
Do you have any relevant point here? Nothing has changed for Pluto, except it's classification as a planet. This has not suddenly changed it's orbit or it's composition. And yes, science textbooks will need to be revised. So?
Perhaps. If other evidence shows up that forces us to change the definition of what a planet is again, we will need to change it again. What else should we do, AV? Not change is, while knowing it doesn't work? How does that make sense?
No, I don't. What would you expect science to do, AV? Not change the classification of Pluto to accomodate the new information, despite that this would pose great problems of clarity because of the new observations? If we discover tomorrow that smoking is, in fact, not a primary cause for lungcancer but dancing the boogie woogie is, should we ignore that and leave everything where it was?Tom, you don't get it, do you?
Because at that time, Pluto was a large object circling the sun, which didn't make it a comet and didn't make it a star. And because at the time it was discovered, that was enough to make it a planet. Now, we found new planets and new objects that look like Pluto, which makes the previous, vague definition of planet untenable. Because of that, we need to change the definition. What would you propose to do otherwise, AV?Why were they so gung-ho to call Pluto a planet at all? This is par-for-the-course for science.
No, it is not. The publish or perish priniciple is a phenomenon where lines of research are abandoned if they don't give results soon enough. It is a problem recognized by scientists, but it's reasons are political, not scientific.As soon as something is sighted --- get it published - refute it later.
This is known as the Publish or Perish Principle.
Yes. Do the experiment and let others check the results with more experiments. Again, what the bad thing in that?Get that accreditation and publicity first, then worry about it being refuted later.
So, because scientists are honest about science being tentative and about the debate within the scientific community, you state that science cannot be trusted? Where's the logic in that, other than in a kind of Orwellian 'doublethink'.This is why I stopped reading Scientific American and Popular Science, and stuff like that.
Great breakthroughs --- right on the front cover --- then read the article:
- Scientists "think" they might have evidence for...
- Scientists "assume" they've seen...
- However, Dr. So-and-So disagrees, saying...
- We "may" have a major breakthrough here.
- 30 years from now, we may just see this phenomenon occur.
- We're "headed for a breakthrough".
So now you bring out things that scientists themselves never believed but rather were shoddy statements by ufologists, and pretend scientists denoted special attention to it in any way. Really AV, if you are going to discuss this in any way, could you at least discuss what actually happened?The usual junk - from UFO's behind the Hale-Bopp comet to tides destroying coastal areas during the next conjunction of Mars and Jupiter.
Faces on Mars, Gumby on Venus,
What's the next peek into the 'scope
Gonna bring us?
Will it be another face, somehow?
Yes indeed! Mickey Mouse on a cow!
They did try telling us that during the Y2K Scare, and I didn't believe it.Chalnoth said:What if science tells us your computer won't work tomorrow?
USincognito said:You know the great thing about Pluto is that it shows there is robust discussion amongst astronomical professionals and that new data can bring about a new consensus. That's good change.
You know the great thing about Pluto is that it shows there is robust discussion amongst astronomical professionals and that new data can bring about a new consensus. That's good change.
On the other hand Creationists hear something they like and then tenaciously hang onto it, and worse yet, repeat, dispite being shown they are incorrect, sometimes for decades as in the case of Lucy's knee joint.
Pluto was a case of astronomy incorporating new data like verification of Kuiper-belt objects and a more precise definition of planets. "Lucy's knee joint" is a case of Creationists propigating a lie because they like the sound of it.
On the other hand Creationists hear something they like and then tenaciously hang onto it, and worse yet, repeat, dispite being shown they are incorrect, sometimes for decades as in the case of Lucy's knee joint.
They did try telling us that during the Y2K Scare, and I didn't believe it.
My toaster works just fine.
How does that saying go?
They came for Pluto, but we were Earth, so nobody said anything. Then they came for Neptune, but we were Earth, so nobody said anything. Then they came for Uranus, but we were Earth, so we didn't say anything. Etc. Finally, they came for Earth, and there was no one left to speak for us.
Chalnoth said:Two things:
1. The discovery of extrasolar planets.
2. The discovery of a Kuiper belt object larger than Pluto.
This prompted the astronomy community to come together to decide on a standard definition of a planet, so that, within scientific circles, there would be no ambiguity. The important thing was that people settle on a definition, not what the actual definition was.
The fact that the rest of the world cared has more to do with the public appeal of solar system astronomy. It really doesn't much matter what people outside of astronomy say is a planet or not.
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?