Oh, so if, in your judgement, the vote had been legitimate, you'd be fine with the change in Pluto's classification?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Oh, so if, in your judgement, the vote had been legitimate, you'd be fine with the change in Pluto's classification?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.
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.
You make it sound so legitimate.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?
An even better question is: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"?
And you are looking the other way, while one of your science organizations violated its own bylaws.Hans Blaster said:You are making *too* much of the attendance numbers.
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?
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?
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(?)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.
During the IAU conference some astronomers couldn't contain their bias in voting to retain Pluto's planetary status.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(?)
Something's wrong!During the IAU conference some astronomers couldn't contain their bias in voting to retain Pluto's planetary status.
A rigged vote is a rigged vote, no matter what the outcome.Suppose the vote resulted in Pluto retaining its status as a planet.
It was different when the Cdesign Proponentsists got [rightfully] busted though, wasn't it?During the IAU conference some astronomers couldn't contain their bias in voting to retain Pluto's planetary status.
* pic: Pluto cartoon character *
Your final opinion does not indicate the vote was rigged at all.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.
Don't cry too hard.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.
sjastro said:In a hypothetical world ...
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.
What a silly immature petulant comment.Don't cry too hard.
Remember what you said in the previous post?
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.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.)
Notice in the same post, you labeled yourself as such:What a silly immature petulant comment.
You purposely threw yourself in front of that bus, using a hypothetical, just so you could start harping on this.sjastro said:Now AV according to your impeccable logic that makes me a 'crook';
Did Laurele lie in the OP?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.
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?