The Pluto Issue

[Psudopod]

As it keeps coming up and derailing threads, I thought I'd make a seperate thread to discuss the issue here.

Pluto, when discovered, was decreed to be the ninth planet in the solar system. As time went by and more and more objects were discovered in the solar system, it was quickly realised that if Pluto was a planet, then so were lots of other things. Lots and lots of other things. So, it the defintion of planet was kept the same, then the solar sytem contained thousands of planets. If it was changed so Pluto was excluded, then there were 8. Because this was a matter of naming, and didn't really affect our understanding of the solar system, just our asthetics, a vote was held to decide whether or not to change the definition of planet. The outcome was that the term planet was redifined to exclude Pluto. Nothing about our understanding of Pluto changed, just what we call it.

Now, what exactly is the problem with this?

 

[Belk]

As it keeps coming up and derailing threads, I thought I'd make a seperate thread to discuss the issue here.

Pluto, when discovered, was decreed to be the ninth planet in the solar system. As time went by and more and more objects were discovered in the solar system, it was quickly realised that if Pluto was a planet, then so were lots of other things. Lots and lots of other things. So, it the defintion of planet was kept the same, then the solar sytem contained thousands of planets. If it was changed so Pluto was excluded, then there were 8. Because this was a matter of naming, and didn't really affect our understanding of the solar system, just our asthetics, a vote was held to decide whether or not to change the definition of planet. The outcome was that the term planet was redifined to exclude Pluto. Nothing about our understanding of Pluto changed, just what we call it.

Now, what exactly is the problem with this?

Just as a guess? Because it drives you nuts when he does it. It's all about getting attention.

 

[Cabal]

Just as a guess? Because it drives you nuts when he does it. It's all about getting attention.

I think it has something to do with the fact that acknowledging the rather logical explanation that Psudopod put forward means we're all marching in lockstep to whatever science says, rather than actually thinking about it.

I really think that apart from astronomers and people with a crippling inability to think up eight-letter acronyms instead of a nine-letter one, this redefinition wasn't a big deal to most.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, what exactly is the problem with this?

I really think that apart from astronomers and people with a crippling inability to think up eight-letter acronyms instead of a nine-letter one, this redefinition wasn't a big deal to most.

I'll let answers.com handle this one:

This redefinition met with a wave of protests from those who wanted to see the ninth planet grandfathered in, including but not limited to supporters of the late Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto in 1930. His widow, however, said he would have been accepting of the IAU's decision since "he was a scientist" and understood that astronomers had to take into account newly discovered objects in the Kupier Belt (where Pluto is located).

But opponents of Pluto's demotion remain unconsoled and have generated a thriving industry in T-shirts, mugs and other memorabilia. Among the many slogans of this movement was one which played on the mnemonic for the names of the erstwhile nine:

"My! Very educated morons just screwed up numerous planetariums."

 

[Cabal]

I'll let answers.com handle this one:

Planetaria, the big sentimental eejits.

I really do wonder if these people would have freaked out in the same way if we happened to discover a tenth planet floating out there. Their brains would probably explode.

Oh, wait, we kinda did discover a whole bunch of little dwarf objects floating around out there, hence the redefinition.....

 

[AV1611VET]

Planetaria, the big sentimental eejits.

I really do wonder if these people would have freaked out in the same way if we happened to discover a tenth planet floating out there. Their brains would probably explode.

Oh, wait, we kinda did discover a whole bunch of little dwarf objects floating around out there, hence the redefinition.....

Kinda like finding out squirrels don't fly, but they're still called 'flying squirrels', isn't it?

And I love this "reverse-pluto-logic" doosey:

Beware the 'terrible lizard':

​

 

[Cabal]

Kinda like finding out squirrels don't fly, but they're still called 'flying squirrels', isn't it?

And I love this "reverse-pluto-logic" doosey:

Beware the 'terrible lizard':

​

Or calling you "homo sapiens".

That aside, flying squirrels and terrible lizards are colloquial names and not terminological*, so they really have no bearing on this point.

*"Planet" is also terminological.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or calling you "homo sapiens".

That aside, flying squirrels and terrible lizards are colloquial names and not terminological*, so they really have no bearing on this point.

*"Planet" is also terminological.

Good --- then as far as California, New Mexico, Illinois and I are concerned --- Pluto is still a planet.

Reception to the IAU decision was mixed. While some accepted the reclassification, others seek to overturn the decision with online petitions urging the IAU to consider reinstatement. A resolution introduced by some members of the California state assembly light-heartedly denounces the IAU for "scientific heresy," among other crimes. The U.S. state of New Mexico's House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Tombaugh, a longtime resident of that state, which declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 will be "Pluto Planet Day". The Illinois State Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009, on the basis that Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU.

Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision. Others view this rejection as an attempt to bend the rules in order to keep the only planet discovered by an American classified as such.

 

[Cabal]

Good --- then as far as California, New Mexico, Illinois and I are concerned --- Pluto is still a planet.

Firstly - really, WHAT does it matter?

Secondly - you do realise in no way did your little terminology point actually allow you to make that statement? Your definition is counter to the now-defined term of planet. So you're wrong

 

[Psudopod]

I'm still at a loss AV, I'm sorry.

Yes, some people weren't happy with the decision, but I still fail to see a) what the problem is, and b) why this refers to science. It was pretty much an aesthetic decision.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm still at a loss AV, I'm sorry.

Yes, some people weren't happy with the decision, but I still fail to see a) what the problem is, and b) why this refers to science. It was pretty much an aesthetic decision.

Actually, Cabal hit the nail right on the head with his first sentence in Post 3.

But --- believe it or not --- I have another major issue with this Pluto thing.

Here on CF, from the posts I read, I noticed that the reclassification of Pluto was accepted automatically, with 100% agreement.

That's "automatic" --- and --- "100% agreement".

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was, "Yup. That's why they can't understand anything past Genesis 1."

You guys read, for example, that there's all sorts of contradictions involving what happened on Resurrection morning, and hey, that's good enough. As long as I read somewhere that the Gospel accounts contradict each other, that's good enough for me!

Then they come here and spout that, and someone tries to explain it, even in detail, and it becomes a finger-in-my-ears-I'm-not-interested-it's-a-pratt-and-please-go-away moment.

There's just no getting through to someone who has that kind of brick-wall mentality.

You guys complain that the books of the Bible were settled on by some council that voted on what books to include, and what books to exclude.

"Complain", I said.

Then you turn around and think it should be an automatic and 100% fact that Pluto is now a dwarf planet.

Why? Because a much smaller "council" voted on it!

Everything you guys have ever accused us of doing, you end up doing yourselves.

 

[Psudopod]

Well, as far as I remember it wasn't an 100% agreement, so I would agree that was wrong. But it wasn't really a science matter. None of the science of Pluto, none of our understanding of it was changed by the decision, it was only a matter of how many objects did we want to designate as planets in our solar system.

If it was a matter of science, we'd be able to lay out the case for why Pluto wasn't a planet, and if someone couldn't refute that, then they'd have to accept it, or admit they had an a priori reason for wanting it to be a planet.

But there's no real scientific reason why the definition of planet shouldn't be such that it defines Pluto as well as the other eight bodies. It's just that any definition including Pluto ends up including thousands of other astronomical bodies out there, and thus you end up with thousands of planets in the solar system. You'd struggle to come up with a memorable mnemonic for all of those, don't you think!

The difference between the Pluto situation and the bible is that no one has ever claimed that the number of planets in the solar system is divine revelation. Whereas the bible is considered by many to be the Word of God, capital W. The point people are making is that if the bible is that, then why did it take it a council voting on which books to keep and which to throw out. Surely the Word of God should shine out amongst any fakes?

Thanks for answering the question, but I don't feel the two situations are that similar. The pluto decision is triviality, a matter of aesthetics. Sure some people don't like it, because it's changing something they grew up with. But it's not really important in the same sense as the bible.

 

[Psudopod]

Well, as far as I remember it wasn't an 100% agreement,

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying there. I thought you were quoting someone talking about the vote, but you are talking about posters on CF. Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I never felt completely comfortable with the concept of Pluto as a planet. It always felt a bit different to the rest, and then as more and more bodies were discovered, it became obvious to me what was going to happen - we'd either end up with a lot of planets or eight. That was before I'd even heard there was going to be a decision taken on the status of Pluto. So when I heard the decision, it just felt right to me.

 

[Doveaman]

So, it the defintion of planet was kept the same, then the solar sytem contained thousands of planets.

And this would be a problem, why?

It's just that any definition including Pluto ends up including thousands of other astronomical bodies out there, and thus you end up with thousands of planets in the solar system. You'd struggle to come up with a memorable mnemonic for all of those, don't you think!

So they made a boo-boo by calling it a planet in the first place, and now they are left scratching their heads as to what to do about it now?

 

[Cabal]

Actually, Cabal hit the nail right on the head with his first sentence in Post 3.

But --- believe it or not --- I have another major issue with this Pluto thing.

Here on CF, from the posts I read, I noticed that the reclassification of Pluto was accepted automatically, with 100% agreement.

That's "automatic" --- and --- "100% agreement".

Except it wasn't, and you're generalising everyone's reasons for taking that point of view into one soundbite to prove your point.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was, "Yup. That's why they can't understand anything past Genesis 1."

You guys read, for example, that there's all sorts of contradictions involving what happened on Resurrection morning, and hey, that's good enough.

As long as I read somewhere that the Gospel accounts contradict each other, that's good enough for me!

Then they come here and spout that, and someone tries to explain it, even in detail, and it becomes a finger-in-my-ears-I'm-not-interested-it's-a-pratt-and-please-go-away moment.

This would be convincing if you didn't stomp off like a petulant child as soon as someone posts a rebuttal.

There's just no getting through to someone who has that kind of brick-wall mentality.

Or someone who wrongly generalises the opinions of someone else to prove a point.

You guys complain that the books of the Bible were settled on by some council that voted on what books to include, and what books to exclude.

"Complain", I said.

Then you turn around and think it should be an automatic and 100% fact that Pluto is now a dwarf planet.

Why? Because a much smaller "council" voted on it!

And yet you haven't given a decent reason NOT to accept the definition except sheer bloody mindedness.

Well done, AV, army of one, as usual.

Everything you guys have ever accused us of doing, you end up doing yourselves.

Well, we don't WORSHIP Pluto, so maybe you should stop comparing apples and oranges?!

You're the one with the redefinition that affects your alleged one true religion.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod
So, it the defintion of planet was kept the same, then the solar sytem contained thousands of planets.
And this would be a problem, why?

It wouldn't of course. It's just a matter of aesthetics.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point people are making is that if the bible is that, then why did it take it a council voting on which books to keep and which to throw out.

It didn't.

Surely the Word of God should shine out amongst any fakes?

Indeed.

The job of the council was not to create an authorized canon of books, but to created a canon of the authorized books.

In other words, the books of the Bible were already authorized, it was just a matter of filtering out the rest.

If you were put in a room full of legal and non-legal tender and told to sort them out, could you?

Sure you could --- they would be easy to spot:

• one dollar bill here
• two dollar bill here
• three dollar bill there
• four dollar bill there
• five dollar bill here
• etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

So when I heard the decision, it just felt right to me.

Well, it doesn't feel right for others --- namely California, New Mexico and Illinois.

 

[Psudopod]

Indeed.

The job of the council was not to create an authorized canon of books, but to created a canon of the authorized books.

In other words, the books of the Bible were already authorized, it was just a matter of filtering out the rest.

If you were put in a room full of legal and non-legal tender and told to sort them out, could you?

Sure you could --- they would be easy to spot:
one dollar bill here
two dollar bill here
three dollar bill there
four dollar bill there
five dollar bill here
etc.

Fair enough. But the decision on Pluto wasn't really like pick the truth out from the fakes, it was more like deciding what pictures to use on the bills.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod
So when I heard the decision, it just felt right to me.
Well, it doesn't feel right for others --- namely California, New Mexico and Illinois.

Sure, I know that. Like I said, I can't speak for anyone else and I know not everyone was happy with the decision. But it's not science decision, you understand that, right? It might have be decided by a vote of members of an astronomical society, but it wasn't making a change to our understanding.