Astronomers be buggin'

The object in view seemed to be a definition that would 1) be objectively measurable, 2) include Pluto, and 3) increase the number of planets as little as possible while meeting criteria 1 and 2. They succeeded. Good on them.

If we wake up in a year and there are 60 planets, that's just going to confuse the issue for everyone (mostly children, I'm not sure how many adults care or could name more than six planets).

Then they'll need two categories of planets so that the Big Nine still get taught in school, and then they'll fight over which ones deserve to be in which category and then we'll need sub-categories, etc..

Only for political reasons. Pluto has been widely accepted as the ninth planet and taught as that to multiple generations. Any definition that demoted it, especially if it promoted another body to planet status, would have been resisted by a signifigant number of (mainly older) scientists and by the public at large. Consensus-building required that Pluto retain its planetary status.

You're making shit up and haven't a clue what you're talking about.

ROFFIL

Since the lack of a definition has become a problem, and no clear external requirement dictates the choice of a definition, and because science requires a certain consensus to operate, and currently no one position has sufficient weight of numbers to enforce its view, therefore the final agreement shall be founded upon a compromise between many differing positions. That's politics in a nutshell.

And if you think that no astronomers are sensitive to public opinion, then you haven't noticed how many astronomers rely upon government grants to pursue their work. But, contrary to you, I am making all this shit up and don't know what I am talking about.

Now suppose you tell us the straight shit and how all this will sort out, since the touchstone of true knowledge is the ability to accurately predict future conditions.

The politics of the situation, according to you = OLD FOLX HATE CHANGE. Yes, astronomers need govt grants to conduct their research, but you probably won't find that those grant applications contain references to easing the confusion of working moms in Nebraska who will be none too happy to learn that their kids are learning about a 12-planet solar system instead of the 9-planet one she grew up with.

I'm not saying that scientists aren't partly motivated by politics (both inside and outside their ranks), I'm saying that it's ridiculous to argue that "we're used to learning about those things in another way and now we'll have to change all the textbooks" is the dominant force behind anybody's research program or opinions on hot-button subjects.

Mostly, as far as I can tell, it comes down to one person's or group's research countering another's. The planets have been very heavily studied, of course, so any change in the way they are thought of is going to counteract a whole lot of existing data and conclusions over a large span of time, bringing out a lot of resistance.

Debate = "it's not a planet like the others" versus "we've been calling it a planet forever, let's not futz with everything"

Compromise = "okay then, when we redefine 'planet' and recount everything, we'll try and make sure Pluto still counts"

So far as I understand it, Pluto has certain qualities that are planet-like and certain qualities that aren't. But we've always called it a planet. In the interest of not confusing that history, these guys have set up a rubric of what-constitutes-a-planet that includes Pluto, and brings a couple more rocks along with it. That's handy because it serves both purposes -- having a coherent definition of the term, plus keeping our historical organization of things stable and steady.

The only way that would be a problem is if the definition they arranged to do this wasn't useful -- if it seemed jury-rigged for the sole purpose of getting Pluto in there, and in so doing created problems and ambiguities elsewhere. (That may be the case: I don't know how coherent the new definition is, or if it complicates a bunch of other stuff.)

But assuming they're not compromising coherence or scientific practicality to put this definition together, why wouldn't they have an interest in keeping Pluto in the set? I mean, you're setting down to write up a definition of what constitutes a planet. The fact that something has been called a planet for hundreds of years is a legitimate factor in deciding that our use of the word "planet" includes this thing. You can't say "but technically it's not," because the "technically" part is precisely what they're working on defining -- and they're taking historical usage as one small way of determining that. Again: so long as this doesn't compromise the usefulness or coherence of what they come up with, why would that be a bad thing?

Ur, I'm not getting mixed up in the rest of the discussion, but Pluto was discovered in 1930.

http://www.randomhouse.com/images/dyn/cover/?source=9780739322864&height=150

Let's say someone asked you to define fruit versus vegetable. You wouldn't say, "well we always call tomatoes a vegetable, so let's define based on that" -- because that would screw up the whole usefulness of the term "fruit" (i.e., the seed-containing thing).

But "planet" isn't in that position. So far as I understand it, the more we've learned about the solar system, the more malleable the lines between planets and other things have become. There's no big important distinction that we absolutely must make about what constitutes a planet or not -- we just want a definitive call on where the cutoff is. So when you're deciding that cutoff -- if there aren't any big important distinctions overriding this -- you might as well set the bar in a familiar spot: we've always called Pluto a planet, so maybe that constitutes the bottom limit of what we call planethood?

That said, it seems like other scientists are claiming the new definition does screw up certain important things (having-seeds things!) about the term "planet." So maybe it is squashing useful distinctions in order to include Pluto; I don't know nearly enough about astronomy to say. But if that's not the case, I'm not peeved by trying to include Pluto.

(xpost -- right, not "hundreds of years" -- decades, sure)

The acceptance of the first four asteroids was so matter-of-fact that introductory texts such as First Steps to Astronomy and Geography (1828) lists the planets as, "Eleven: Mercury, Venus, the Earth, Mars, Vesta, Juno, Ceres, Pallas, Jupiter, Saturn, and Herschel." Herschel was an alternate name for Uranus (after its discoverer) used in Britain until the 1850's.

Um, no. I argued that this "seemed to be" one of the desired conditions of the compromise reached. I also stated clearly that any definition would require a certain arbitrariness; this would not sort well logically with my stating that any part of the definition was (as it was in your characterization of my position) "absolutely necessary". In fact, I said no such illogical thing.

Lee is one of the only people here who understands that science is flexible, that definitions can change. Why, Nabisco, must we place the bar in a familiar spot? It looks like you're claiming that we should only add to science (and not take anything away) because it's the easiest thing to do. You asked "why wouldn't they have an interest in keeping Pluto in the set?". This is a perfectly legitimate question, but the primary reason for making that extra effort to retain Pluto's planetary status is "because we've always called it a planet". I'm saying that this familiarity *might* affect the final decision, but there is absolutely no reason to *expect* that familiarity enters the discussion. Scientists are wrong sometimes! Maybe we never should have called Pluto a planet to begin with, and astronomers are now thinking about correcting that (possible) mistake.

That is a much more accurate portrayal of my position. Thank you. It rankles whenever others paraphrase me in ways that signifigantly diminish the nuances of what I said, and in doing so turn it into a crude, simplistic, inaccurate straw man they can pile scorn upon.

You still have one particle of (parenthetical) error that requires correction. I merely claimed that science was not exclusively driving the process, because the science involved did not conclusively lead to any specific definition of a planet, and therefore many of the final details of the definition would be determined by politics.

A wholly political process might lead to the USA being declared a planet, because the puissant might and exalted dignity of the USA (not to mention the large number of US astronomers) clearly must lay claim to this honor, thus setting the USA far above mere 'nations' and raising it to its proper prominence in the order of the universe.

In my view, science will obviously set broad limits to what the definition may be, but politics will settle the exact details. You seem to think this is a horrendous slander upon the honor of astronomy. I don't. I think this is a pretty accurate point of view. Sue me.

Umm, precisely because science is flexible, and definitions can change! There's no real issue of "scientific objectivity" in how we define the word "planet." There are only two real concerns: (a) define the word in a way that's useful, and makes important, helpful, coherent distinctions between planets and non-planets, plus (b) not get everything all mixed-up and confused in the process.

So if we call Pluto a planet now, setting the bar right around Pluto satisfies (b). It makes life easier and keeps our use of the word "planet" more consistent with history. The only concern is whether that plays havoc with (a). You seem concerned about this: is there any particular reason you think setting the bar around Pluto messes with (a) -- the whole "keep the distinction useful" part?

I'm not sure what Lee's saying about Ceres -- under the proposed Pluto-inclusive definition, Ceres counts as a planet, I think.

This is probably what I had in mind when I started this thread -- the personal (and political?) feelings involved in the debate seem to be borne out by the quotations I copied/pasted to the top of the thread. (E.g. "Plutophile"?)

As for Ceres, um, I don't remember why I mentioned it. Possibly the historical flexibility/problematics of the "planet" definition?

just like that martian rock that was named Scooby Doo

fuck that shit

There was no real justification for saying tyrannosaurus (a saurischian) and stegosaurus (an ornithischian) were dinosaurs but a pterodactyl wasn't. Nonetheless the term dinosaur had been around for a long time and the public had gotten used to it. So a definition of sorts evolved: dinosaurs were (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... (e) .... But the definition was arbitrary, and scientists knew it.