That's not an astronomer. That's a science fiction author.
There's a lot of overlap between scientists and science fiction authors, since they mutually influence one another and they're often the same people. So you can't really separate the two in terms of their attitudes. That link is just the most convenient example I have of an attitude I often came across from astronomers and science writers. The most characteristic thing about Pluto was that it was the odd one out, the one so different from the other planets that it barely seemed to fit.
Most reputable astronomers were perfectly fine with Pluto as a planet.
Only because we didn't have another category for it yet. Like I said, the asteroids were originally called planets too, but then we learned enough about them to realize it was better to create a separate category for them. Pluto was called a planet when it was the only one of its kind, but now that we know it's one of dozens of its class, with possibly hundreds more like it yet to be discovered, it would be crazy not to create a distinct category for them.
See, this is what keeps getting ignored, and it's the most crucial point. It has never been
just about Pluto. The whole reason a new category was needed was because Pluto wasn't the only one of its kind anymore. And it would make no sense to create a special category for all the others but leave Pluto out of it. So either there are eight planets and dozens of dwarf planets, or there are dozens of planets.
One astronomer, Mike Brown, was an exception . . . he'd found another rock beyond Neptune and wanted it to have planet status, but when folks didn't acquiesce he threw a hissy-fit and decided to attack Pluto.
Ad hominem attack is not legitimate argument.
Others actually want to call just about everything a planet, which is just as chaotic as the bad definition.
But I think that's the solution to the whole thing. The one thing that doesn't make sense about the new category is saying that dwarf planets aren't planets. I mean, dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Dwarf stars are still stars (except brown dwarfs, depending on whom you ask). Dwarf trees are still trees. So why not just say there are multiple classes of planet -- gas giant, ice giant, superterrestrial, terrestrial, and dwarf? I think that would settle everything, and be better science to boot.
Pluto is the only planet that enters within the orbital zone of one of the other recognized planets. That's not embarrassing. That's unique and sets it apart from the various frozen trans-Neptunian rocks and iceballs.
But that's not how science works. Science is about formulating general laws that can be used to predict and categorize new discoveries. A unique attribute of one object doesn't tell us anything useful about objects in general, so it has no scientific value. The point of the creation of the dwarf planet category was that we needed it to characterize Eris, Haumea, Quaoar, and all the other objects that had certain attributes in common. That compelled astronomers to clarify the definition of what was or wasn't a planet, since "planet" was a leftover term from antiquity and science had never actually come up with a formal definition of its parameters. And when it came down to it, it was concluded that Pluto had more in common with Eris, Haumea, etc. than it did with the eight planets. So it only made sense to put it in the new category.
Again: It is not just about Pluto. It never has been.
That the dwarf planet status means that- as far as their education is concerned- it simply drops out of existence when teaching about the solar system.
I agree, that's a shame. I find dwarf planets cool and exciting because they're a whole new area of discovery. We thought we'd closed the book on the Solar System, but now we know there's still a whole bunch of it left to find.
