The Pluto Issue

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm pretty sure that we've been over this before.

Yes ... reclassifications occur in science all the time.

By legitimate due processes.

Pluto being an exception in my ... and others' ... opinion.

Oh, so if, in your judgement, the vote had been legitimate, you'd be fine with the change in Pluto's classification?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm pretty sure that we've been over this before.

Yes we have and it is tiresome. You're the only one who keeps dragging this back into discussion. (And often, though not in the case, into irrelevant places.)

Yes ... reclassifications occur in science all the time.

By legitimate due processes.

Are you sure about "due process"?

First, that's a legal term, so even if you didn't think that the IAU had done this reclass in a "sneaky" way, it wouldn't be "due process" as that isn't really a thing.

Most reclassifications don't happen because of the decisions of international bodies. They happen because an influential paper reorganizes the existing group(s) of objects and that grouping becomes widely used. The same happens with names of things.

There are some international bodies (like the IAU) where scientists in a field have agreed to certain naming conventions or a central committee to designate official names or a official cataloger. It would be confusing if different people used different names for the same object or species, etc.

Astronomers have a central catalog authority for numbering the minor planets and a central naming authority for selecting a single name. (1 Ceres, 990 Yerkes, 1222 Tina, 2709 Sagan, 134340 Pluto, 601916 Sting, etc.) Likewise they have a central cataloger of verified supernovae (SN 1987A, SN 1998bw, SN2020acat, etc.)

Most astronomical objects are only known by catalog numbers, even "famous" ones. And many are cataloged in multiple places with *different* names. (The "Pinwheel Galaxy" is item # 101 in Messier's catalog [M 101] and #5457 in the New General Catalog [NGC 5457].)

Even worse most newly cataloged items are just sky coordinates (for example: "IRAS 00500+6713", what a lovely name that is.)

As for how these objects are classified, that's what the research is for...

Pluto being an exception in my ... and others' ... opinion.

Yes, we understand. This is your irrational crusade and it has nothing to do with the usefulness of the classification scheme -- just hurt feelings about the "demotion" of 134340 Pluto from "planet status".

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, we understand. This is your irrational crusade and it has nothing to do with the usefulness of the classification scheme -- just hurt feelings about the "demotion" of 134340 Pluto from "planet status".

You make it sound so legitimate.

But if it was indeed legitimate, why did this happen:

"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. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused."

- From the OP to this thread that I wish you guys would read.

Does that sound legitimate to you?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You make it sound so legitimate.

But if it was indeed legitimate, why did this happen:

"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. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused."

- From the OP to this thread that I wish you guys would read.

Does that sound legitimate to you?

A better question is "how do you become a member of the IAU" and "do all members regularly attend the meetings of the kind where this business could be done"?

I am and have been a member of several professional scientific societies and have never consistently attended every such "all society" meetings. I may (and I'm not sure) have even been some sort of "affiliate" member of one of those international bodies (like the IAU) because I attended one of the small meetings they sponsored.

You are making *too* much of the attendance numbers.

 

[AV1611VET]

A better question is "how do you become a member of the IAU" and "do all members regularly attend the meetings of the kind where this business could be done"?

An even better question is:

Did you see the words "violation" and "violated" in my post?

You are making *too* much of the attendance numbers.

And you are looking the other way, while one of your science organizations violated its own bylaws.

 

[Yttrium]

So the question still stands albeit in a modified form; since you take the burden of proof seriously what percentage of the 424 astronomers who voted for Pluto's demotion did so because they are corrupted as opposed to those who did so for legitimate technical reasons?

I don't think they did it because they were corrupt, and I don't think they did it for legitimate technical reasons. I think they did it for practicality. They didn't want to keep adding more planets to the roster. If they let the old definition stand, then they'd have to add Eris, Ceres and others to the list of planets. So they came up with a new, arbitrary standard that (more or less) works okay with our solar system.

The only reason for the change was to keep a lid on the number of planets.

 

[sjastro]

You make it sound so legitimate.

But if it was indeed legitimate, why did this happen:

"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. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused."

- From the OP to this thread that I wish you guys would read.

Does that sound legitimate to you?

You haven't thought this through.
Suppose the vote resulted in Pluto retaining its status as a planet.
Given the IAU 'violated' its own bylaws you just as well argue the vote was rigged in this case.
Would you be as enraged demanding that scientists demote Pluto because the vote was rigged; I don't think so.

Of the 9000 odd IAU members who could vote 424 did.
The question becomes whether this sample size is statistically valid to represent a majority view for the population.
Using a population size of n = 9000, a margin of error of 0.5 and a confidence level of 95%, the theoretical number to provide a statistically valid sample number is 369, so the actual number that voted is not an issue.

From the conspiracy theory POV the vote could only be rigged if the 424 that voted did not represent a random sample.
So once again the burden of proof which you claim to adhere to is to show why the sample is not random.

 

[SelfSim]

The question becomes whether this sample size is statistically valid to represent a majority view for the population.
Using a population size of n = 9000, a margin of error of 0.5 and a confidence level of 95%, the theoretical number to provide a statistically valid sample number is 369, so the actual number that voted is not an issue.

From the conspiracy theory POV the vote could only be rigged if the 424 that voted did not represent a random sample.
So once again the burden of proof which you claim to adhere to is to show why the sample is not random.

Ahh .. I predict we're about to see the principle of: 'Some votes count more than others' being invoked ... thereby leading to minority arguments for deliberate voter suppression measures(?)

 

[sjastro]

Ahh .. I predict we're about to see the principle of: 'Some votes count more than others' being invoked ... thereby leading to minority arguments for deliberate voter suppression measures(?)

During the IAU conference some astronomers couldn't contain their bias in voting to retain Pluto's planetary status.

 

[SelfSim]

During the IAU conference some astronomers couldn't contain their bias in voting to retain Pluto's planetary status.

Something's wrong!
I know .. its the cap .. its the wrong colour!

 

[AV1611VET]

Suppose the vote resulted in Pluto retaining its status as a planet.

A rigged vote is a rigged vote, no matter what the outcome.

How about this? would it help if I said the procedure was rigged?

I'll parse the first part of the OP, but this is getting ridiculous.

Q: AV1611VET, at what point was the vote (or procedure) rigged?
VET: I don't know. I look at it this way:

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

Opinion: I don't think this is what rigged the vote.

2. 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.

Opinion: This sounds to me like they waited on purpose for certain people to leave.

3. No absentee voting was allowed.

Opinion: This sounds highly suspicious. But maybe that's their policy. Dunno.

4. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require.

Opinion: That spells "rigged" to me.

5. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter.

Opinion: Sounds suspicious. But again, maybe that's their policy. Dunno.

6. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused.

Opinion: Sounds like they've got something to hide.

Final Opinion: Rush job. No qualified people (or not enough) voted, due to the way it was scheduled. Rigged.

Had everyone been there and voted that was there before most attendees had left, I would guess the outcome of the vote would have been different.

Dunno.

 

[AV1611VET]

During the IAU conference some astronomers couldn't contain their bias in voting to retain Pluto's planetary status.

* pic: Pluto cartoon character *

It was different when the Cdesign Proponentsists got [rightfully] busted though, wasn't it?

Academia was all over that like ants on ice cream; and I'm glad it happened.

But then, when they get called out on this Pluto thing, it's a different story, isn't it?

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

 

[sjastro]

A rigged vote is a rigged vote, no matter what the outcome.

How about this? would it help if I said the procedure was rigged?

I'll parse the first part of the OP, but this is getting ridiculous.

Q: AV1611VET, at what point was the vote (or procedure) rigged?
VET: I don't know. I look at it this way:

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

Opinion: I don't think this is what rigged the vote.

2. 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.

Opinion: This sounds to me like they waited on purpose for certain people to leave.

3. No absentee voting was allowed.

Opinion: This sounds highly suspicious. But maybe that's their policy. Dunno.

4. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require.

Opinion: That spells "rigged" to me.

5. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter.

Opinion: Sounds suspicious. But again, maybe that's their policy. Dunno.

6. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused.

Opinion: Sounds like they've got something to hide.

Final Opinion: Rush job. No qualified people (or not enough) voted, due to the way it was scheduled. Rigged.

Had everyone been there and voted that was there before most attendees had left, I would guess the outcome of the vote would have been different.

Dunno.

Your final opinion does not indicate the vote was rigged at all.
It’s not like finding evidence scientists were bribed to vote a particular way or ring-ins were introduced to alter the result.
Also you have mentioned the word opinion on seven different occasions; do you understand an opinion does not constitute evidence?

Let’s cut to the chase; you have made it perfectly clear in past posts any scientist who voted for Pluto’s demotion is automatically a crook as well as labeling me a crook for supporting the decision through guilt by association.
This is your true motivation by dredging up Pluto on a regular basis so you can engage in anti-intellectualism against scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let’s cut to the chase; you have made it perfectly clear in past posts any scientist who voted for Pluto’s demotion is automatically a crook as well as labeling me a crook for supporting the decision through guilt by association.

Don't cry too hard.

Remember what you said in the previous post?

In a hypothetical world ...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let’s cut to the chase; you have made it perfectly clear in past posts any scientist who voted for Pluto’s demotion is automatically a crook as well as labeling me a crook for supporting the decision through guilt by association.
This is your true motivation by dredging up Pluto on a regular basis so you can engage in anti-intellectualism against scientists.

Let us not pretend this has anything to do with the classification or status of 134340 Pluto. (Since it is now minor planet, I will following the standard IAU conventions use the number in all uses.)

 

[sjastro]

Don't cry too hard.

Remember what you said in the previous post?

What a silly immature petulant comment.

 

[sjastro]

Let us not pretend this has anything to do with the classification or status of 134340 Pluto. (Since it is now minor planet, I will following the standard IAU conventions use the number in all uses.)

I've taken this a step further, as an amateur astronomer imaging Pluto was on my bucket list, now that it is a dwarf planet who cares to image such an object.

 

[AV1611VET]

What a silly immature petulant comment.

Notice in the same post, you labeled yourself as such:

Now AV according to your impeccable logic that makes me a 'crook';

You purposely threw yourself in front of that bus, using a hypothetical, just so you could start harping on this.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've taken this a step further, as an amateur astronomer imaging Pluto was on my bucket list, now that it is a dwarf planet who cares to image such an object.

Did Laurele lie in the OP?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Still funny to me that this is something that so impacts AV's personal life so much that he always gets up in arms over it.