The Pluto Issue

[sjastro]

Shoot first, ask questions later?QV please: Post 17

So even if the vote was legitimate you would reject it because of this convoluted Bible quote.
What we have here is yet another example of the Bible being used to justify one's ignorance and bigotry.

 

[AV1611VET]

What we have here is yet another example of the Bible being used to justify one's ignorance and bigotry.

That's a little uncalled for, don't you think?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's a little uncalled for, don't you think?

Your anti-scientist rhetoric seems to invite such evaluations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bumped for Odprey.

 

[Opdrey]

Bumped for Odprey.

Thanks.

Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the SUN and the MOON were planets (HERE).

I'm guessing you are equally outraged that no one today considers either a planet, right? But they were once "planets".

When you get around to railing against the demotion of the Moon from planet status and the demotion of the Sun from planet status I think you'll have a pretty self-consistent narrative. Until then it just kinda sounds like you don't actually understand the topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm guessing you are equally outraged that no one today considers either a planet, right? But they were once "planets".

And I'll guess and say you aren't equally outraged that Pluto was demoted by way of a rigged vote.

I suspect that's the only way it could have been done.

Does it bother you that science is going around rigging votes?

Had ICR rigged some vote ...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Had ICR rigged some vote ...

First they'd have to do some science. Then we might care what they did.

 

[AV1611VET]

First they'd have to do some science. Then we might care what they did.

Nice try.

cdesign proponentsists

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nice try.

cdesign proponentsists

I know about "cdesign proponentists", but it ain't science. Try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know about "cdesign proponentists", but it ain't science. Try again.

I know.

But people ranted and raved about it for years.

And I submit those exact same people couldn't care less that the IAU rigged a vote.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

 

[sjastro]

Had ICR rigged some vote ...

Where does your bigotry end?
Now it's about mass spectrometry.

 

[Kylie]

And I'll guess and say you aren't equally outraged that Pluto was demoted by way of a rigged vote.

I suspect that's the only way it could have been done.

Does it bother you that science is going around rigging votes?

Had ICR rigged some vote ...

I can't speak for Odprey, but I am just as outraged that Pluto is no longer classified as a planet as I am that the Sun and Moon are no longer considered planets.

Which is to say, not at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can't speak for Odprey, but I am just as outraged that Pluto is no longer classified as a planet as I am that the Sun and Moon are no longer considered planets.

Which is to say, not at all.

The end justified the mean, didn't it?

 

[Opdrey]

And I'll guess and say you aren't equally outraged that Pluto was demoted by way of a rigged vote.

I'm not. Because I understand science and this is what happens.

Does it bother you that science is going around rigging votes?

LOL. That's hilarious. It doesn't change ANYTHING.

Had ICR rigged some vote ...

Most Creationist Research places don't "rig" their science, they just do it all really badly.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not. Because I understand science and this is what happens.

They rig votes right and left, do they? or, as Laurele put it, violate their own bylaws?

LOL. That's hilarious. It doesn't change ANYTHING.

Well I don't know about you, but for me, it changed my perspective for the worse.

When I see an academic organization like the IAU violating their own bylaws, that bothers me.

Albeit not as much as it bothers me when I see a Christian organization like ICR pull a stunt like their cdesign proponentsisis stunt.

That bothers me more.

I guess I should learn to accept that scientific organizations are about as corrupt as the government, shouldn't I?

Most Creationist Research places don't "rig" their science,

I'm glad to hear that.

... they just do it all really badly.

In the case of the IAU though, it appears they went out of their way to do something corrupt.

 

[Kylie]

The end justified the mean, didn't it?

Do you think I was hoping for some particular result?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They rig votes right and left, do they? or, as Laurele put it, violate their own bylaws?Well I don't know about you, but for me, it changed my perspective for the worse.

Remind us who attended the Council of Rome to decide the books of the bible. Was that a rigged vote? If not, why was it necessary to have later councils to ratify the decision?

 

[AV1611VET]

Remind us who attended the Council of Rome to decide the books of the bible. Was that a rigged vote?

Did they violate their own bylaws?

 

[Opdrey]

They rig votes right and left, do they? or, as Laurele put it, violate their own bylaws?

I was sad when Pluto got demoted simply because I always loved Pluto as a child. It was the outer reaches. That was because I was a child and I didn't know anything about the Kuiper Belt and I didn't know there was no technical differentiator to clarify exactly what was and wasn't a planet.

AV, you HAVE to understand this isn't related at all to any sort of scientific malpractice. This is simply defining a word. That's all it is.

Have you heard the phrase "the map is not the territory"? That's exactly what this is. It is changing a label on a map. It doesn't change anything about the nature of Pluto or our understanding of it in relation to the MANY other things of similar or larger size in the Kuiper Belt.

This ISN'T a science issue. It's a "LABELING" issue.

Well I don't know about you, but for me, it changed my perspective for the worse.

That's because you are stuck thinking of Pluto the way we all did as children. When you spend a career doing SCIENCE you start to realize that there's a difference between how we LABEL something and the actual ONTOLOGY of what that thing is.

I guess I should learn to accept that scientific organizations are about as corrupt

Let me stop you there. Regardless of how the vote went down it isn't really an issue for scientists. It's a personal preference issue, maybe even an issue over whose favorite boundaries are set up. But it has NOTHING to do with science per se.

You are correct. There is corruption anytime there are people. Religious groups know this better than anyone else.

Does the stunning number of cases of child molestation and marital infidelity and drug use and lying we see among clergy mean Christ was wrong? I hope not.

(The only fundamental difference in the religious sphere is presumably those who are doing those particularly nasty sins while working in service to God are showing us that they, themselves, don't really think much of God...but again, that's not a THEOLOGICAL issue. That's a personal issue to clergy.)

as the government, shouldn't I?I'm glad to hear that.In the case of the IAU though, it appears they went out of their way to do something corrupt.

And exactly how does relabeling Pluto alter what we know about celestial mechanics, astrophysics, planetary geology, or chemistry?

(Hint: it doesn't. Not one whit.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Regardless of how the vote went down ...

That says it all.

The ends justified the means, didn't it?