The Pluto Issue

[Opdrey]

That says it all.

The ends justified the means, didn't it?

One of the most thrilling things in the world is to spend time to rationally attempt to discuss a topic with someone only to have that someone turn around and urinate all over it by ignoring pretty much everything.

I am reminded of a verse from the Bible. Luke 6:31 I believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the most thrilling things in the world is to spend time to rationally attempt to discuss a topic with someone only to have that someone turn around and urinate all over it by ignoring pretty much everything.

I am reminded of a verse from the Bible. Luke 6:31 I believe.

That's pretty rich, Opdrey, in view of the fact that you will not address the fact that the IAU violated its own bylaws.

In my opinion, Pluto would not have been downgraded had they not violated said bylaws.

No downgrade, no change in the dictionary, no nothing.

It would have been put to a legitimate vote, and voted down.

But even if I'm wrong, the vote still would have been legitimate, and I wouldn't be harping as much on this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just a reminder from the OP, with highlights:

"Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did they violate their own bylaws?

I didn't realize you were into legalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't realize you were into legalism.

QV please:

Yes, it seems that even astronomers cannot have an election without messing around with the process. Such is sadly now the case as the vote in Prague by the International Astronomical Union to demote Pluto from planet to dwarf planet has been exposed as a fraud.

SOURCE

 

[Opdrey]

That's pretty rich, Opdrey, in view of the fact that you will not address the fact that the IAU violated its own bylaws.

I wish I could communicate to you some example you might understand. I have tried.

Can I ask: do you understand the difference between how something is LABELED and what that thing IS?

If I were to call my dog a "woof-woof" instead of a dog, do you think I have somehow redefined our basic knowledge of the dog's biology?

I am asking this seriously because it is at the heart of this.

In my opinion, Pluto would not have been downgraded had they not violated said bylaws.

It most certainly would have. Remember: the goal was to establish a technical definition of a planet that could be consistently applied. If Pluto wasn't downgraded the number of "planets" in our solar system would probably start to explode as we found other KBO's (Kuiper Belt Objects) that were the same size or larger.

But even if I'm wrong, the vote still would have been legitimate, and I wouldn't be harping as much on this.

But your "harping" on this is NOT a critique of science.

Unless you think Ted Haggard single-handedly made Christianity a joke.

(Not that this particular "vote" was even marginally as vile as corrupt as Haggard's hypocrisy)

 

[Opdrey]

I didn't realize you were into legalism.

Pharisee!

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I ask: do you understand the difference between how something is LABELED and what that thing IS?

I'm second to none in bringing up the flying squirrel.

It most certainly would have.

I doubt it.

I think they knew something we don't.

That's why they rigged it.

Remember: the goal was to establish a technical definition of a planet that could be consistently applied.

And the ends justified the means, didn't it?

Unless you think Ted Haggard single-handedly made Christianity a joke.

Academia attempts that.

The problem is, they think they can succeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pharisee!

Why don't you call Alan Stern that.

Or will he put you in your place?

 

[Yttrium]

Just a reminder from the OP, with highlights:

"Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left."

Although I'd like them to change the definition back to what it was (so we could get Pluto, Eris and Ceres to be planets), I feel like I should point out one important thing:

In all the time since then, they haven't changed definition. You'd think that if the majority of the IAU was opposed to the change, they would have changed it back by now.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You'd think that if the majority of the IAU was opposed to the change, they would have changed it back by now.

THIS ^^^^^^^

 

[Hans Blaster]

QV please:

SOURCE

Is commentary in Daily Kos to be trusted? I've seen no evidence that it should be taken as "gospel".

My point was that you seem *obsessed* with the "rules" of the IAU.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd think that if the majority of the IAU was opposed to the change, they would have changed it back by now.

You make a good point here, and I've wondered that myself.

I have a feeling there's more to this Pluto issue than meets the eye.

As Laurele pointed out in the OP:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists.

Assuming she made a typo and meant to say, "were not planetary scientists," I can only surmise that the other 96% can't do anything about it, even if they could.

As to why they can't, I don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is commentary in Daily Kos to be trusted? I've seen no evidence that it should be taken as "gospel".

My point was that you seem *obsessed* with the "rules" of the IAU.

I have no idea what the IAU rules are.

I never even heard of the IAU, until all Charon broke loose about it.

It's called "The Great Pluto Debate," and I suspect it will go on for awhile longer.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Did they violate their own bylaws?

Yes. Now answer the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Now answer the question.

I don't know.

What do KOS, the California State Assembly, the New Mexico House of Representatives, and the Illinois Senate have to say about the Council of Rome?

Side note: And for the record, as long as you're in New Mexico or Illinois, they have stated that, as long as Pluto is in their skies, they will always consider it a planet.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have no idea what the IAU rules are.

I never even heard of the IAU, until all Charon broke loose about it.

The IAU is what has always been: in charge of the agreed upon nomenclature of astronomy. They did exactly what they exist to do (update nomenclature to reflect new information) and *then* you care that they exists and become ~~so~~ concerned about their bylaws. All because it penetrates some ~feeling~ you have about a particular object.

 

[AV1611VET]

The IAU is what has always been: in charge of the agreed upon nomenclature of astronomy.

And they'll determine who agrees upon it, won't they?

From the OP:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists.

 

[sjastro]

I'm second to none in bringing up the flying squirrel.I doubt it.

I think they knew something we don't.

That's why they rigged it.And the ends justified the means, didn't it?Academia attempts that.

The problem is, they think they can succeed.

Do I need to remind you of this.

sjastro said this:
If sjastro wants to inject himself behind those closed doors back then and tell me he would have voted against Pluto ... which was done in violation of their own bylaws ... then sjastro is no better than anyone else behind those doors who did the same thing.

And if I think those others who did that are crooks, then I'm going to think the same thing of sjastro too.

I am not an astronomer let alone a member of the IAU and my reasons for demoting Pluto were not the same according to the revised IAU guidelines defining a planet, yet by your 'logic' I am a crook.
By your same 'logic' an astronomer who voted to demote Pluto for technical reasons must also be a crook.

Here are three questions for you?
(1) Why is an astronomer who voted to demote Pluto is automatically labelled a crook?
(2) If the vote was based purely on technical reasons for both the yes and no cases how is the vote rigged?
(3) If the vote was not rigged then explain the why the voting population which constituted 4-5% of the total population who could vote is not considered to be statistically valid to represent the views of the total population?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Pluto is no longer a planet.

And nothing of value was lost.

Nor gained.

Net zero.