It wasn't a stopgap at all, it was just a difference of opinion among a handful of scientists on a relatively low tiered label. Had it not been for the existence of Sedna and other trans-neptunians, the definition never would have been changed in the first place. There would have been no NEED to change it, since otherwise it would have been merely a pedantic debate over whether or not pluto deserved to be called a planet or something else.
See, the problem there is that there was no definition to change. The reason the IAU had trouble settling on a definition of "planet" in 2006 is because
there had never formally been one among scientists.
Of course there was. Previously, the definition of "planet" had been "wandering star," IOW it was a catch-all term for stars whose positions were not fixed in the sky and moved relative to other stars and also occasionally underwent retrograde motion. That these planets did this regularly and were not transient objects was implicit in the definition.
That had been the definition for something like 3000 years, AFAIK; astronomers have slowly stopped taking it literally because they now know what the planets ACTUALLY ARE and know the ways that they are different from stars. To even still use the word "planet" in the new definition is an anachronism, much like the term "planetary nebula" which exists only because those types of nebula were sort of round and orb-like, at a time when planets -- viewed through telescopes -- appeared to show small blurry disks.
From the classical definition, what would a "dwarf planet" even be? A pinpoint of light that's smaller than the other pinpoints? No, the new definition takes into account what those so-called "planets" actually are, not merely what they look like from millions of miles away.
That's what's sad about this. There's all this really cool, awesome new stuff being discovered, and the lay public is missing it because the press has spun it as an argument over labels and nothing more.
It's not the press doing that. There IS a pro-pluto faction (for reasons which continue to escape me) among the public and even among scientists. As far as the press is concerned, Vesta and Ceres are bonfide dwarf planets too, which really just makes them slightly less interesting than the major planets because they don't have any pretty colors or a possibility of liquid water which implies the chance of discovering life. Although I believe this will probably change once Dawn gets to Ceres.
So I think the difference in our perspectives here is because you're focusing on the 2006 IAU ruling itself and I'm focusing more on the everyday scientific work that preceded it, which is a lot more important.
The preceding work is important, but as you aptly pointed out, none of that work factored into the IAU's decision. They deliberately ignored it in favor of more simplistic concerns and to avoid getting caught up into the whole "pluto is a planet!" debate.
Ironically this means politics was a factor in this after all, insofar as the IAU was attempting NOT to get involved in scientific politics and boil the entire problem down to the facts.
When did I say anything about organization? I would have no problem with calling these bodies planets if that were the decision that had been made; in fact, I've already said that it makes far more sense to call dwarf planets a subset of planets than to say they're somehow not planets.
AFAIK, Dwarf Planets ARE considered a subset of planets, along with Gas Giants and Rocky Planets. That seems to be a relatively widespread opinion, from what I can tell.
Hell, I just finished playing Mass Effect 2, there are a dozen solar systems with distinct "dwarf planets" zipping around in regular orbits.
Again: repeating an assertion does not prove it. If what you're saying is true, you should be able to cite a source.
It's not really that relevant of a fact to be published in a searchable/indexable location (none that you'd believe, anyway). It's sort of basic/common knowledge, like Walt Disney's anti-semitism or W.E.B. Dubios' homosexuality.
That is to say, it's not something you would CASUALLY stumble upon just by googling it, but if you're paying attention to the right things it became pretty obvious.
Who said anything about removing interests? Hell, you're the one who's saying that the decision was based on a group's interests, specifically the interest of educators!
But not on BEHALF of educators as a party to the discussion, which is the point. The decision was intended to benefit STUDENTS and avoid discouraging kids from becoming astronomers by making (potentially, one particular aspect of) astronomy overly complicated. It's not like the a collection of schoolteachers showed up at the IAU and pushed for a simpler definition for their own benefit, nor did the students lobby for it hoping to get less science homework. The political aspect of the debate boiled down to "We think pluto should be called a planet!" vs. "We don't think Pluto is really a planet and it should be called something else." The IAU took both of their arguments and basically stamped them 'tl;dr' and did its own thing.
No, you claimed that. You claimed -- and still have not remotely proven -- that it was done based on the exclusive goal of appeasing schoolteachers.
The teachers didn't demand anything so "appeasing" them is a non-sequitor. Again, it wasn't about the teachers as much as it was about the STUDENTS, and to a lesser extent, about the layperson whom the IAU feels it is their job to keep astronomy accessible and not overly confusing.
And I still find that a ridiculous non sequitur and a straw man that insults both our intelligence, because obviously the people you are talking about are the schoolteachers and IAU members.
I find it hard to believe that you actually watched the debates raging around this issue back in 2006 and can claim with a straight face that the ONLY people who complained about Pluto's so-called demotion were "schoolteachers and IAU members"
I'll concede that the political angle for Pluto's "demotion" sort of comes into play for some planetary scientists who felt their livelihood would be threatened if Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet; THIS, primarily, is where the media gets its "It sucks that Pluto was demoted!" meme, since that was exactly what was being said by, for example, the New Horizons team before their PR guys wisely made them stop talking to the press. But the IAU deliberately failed to take any of those concrete considerations into account, thus avoiding the politics altogether.
Oh, so the actual scientists who are doing the work that actually matters are "nobody" to you?
That's not what I said. I said if it weren't for the change in Pluto's status, then nobody -- INCLUDING those scientists -- would have cared.
The IAU could have carefully avoided reclassifying Pluto, which would have made everyone happy; the New Horizons team, for example, wouldn't have to worry about having to explain to the press why a mission to Pluto was still just as important as a mission to Jupiter or Saturn (you and I know they'd still have to explain it, but
they wouldn't be as worried about it). There are also scientists who have devoted a large portion of their time and resources on studying Pluto and likewise felt (and still feel) threatened by the change. And there are others who have no coherent reason at all to object and still do despite being smart enough to know better.
The IAU could have spared their feelings and tweaked the definition just a bit so Pluto could have a pass. Instead they avoided the politics altogether and opted to keep things simple.
Oh, come on, you're getting the cause and effect backward. The reason scientists have to dumb it down is because they know from experience that they have to tailor it to their audience and that most reporters won't understand or care about all this wonderfully fascinating and cool stuff unless the scientists can -- regretfully -- reduce it to something simple or something that can be tied in to Star Trek or Star Wars or something.
I know you're not seeing it, but you just contradicted yourself.
Why would the SCIENTISTS need to play to an audience? I media relations isn't in their job description; scientists conduct research, experiments, process data, publish their findings. It's the job of REPORTERS to make things seem exciting or relevant, not scientists. So how does that relationship get reversed?
This happens because scientists, labs and even theories sometimes have a tendency to troll for attention. Drawing attention usually means drawing a little bit more funding, and more funding can support more research to help validate the theory or at least continue to pay the bills. For this reason, many scientists have adopted the fine art of bullshit as a survival mechanism: it would be too hard to get people interested in their work if they told the truth, so they fudge the truth JUST ENOUGH to make things interesting and to make it easier for the reporters to produce an interesting story.
The trouble is, people who become exceptional bullshitters tend to be more comfortable with bullshit than they are with the truth. This is a notable and infamous feature of politicians: EVERY political candidate knows the issues are complex and nuanced, but they'd much rather babbleoff their talking points than risk an actual thoughtful discussion on the issues. Thoughtful discussions are hard; bullshit is easy.
And you're still talking as if Pluto were the only dwarf planet out there.
Not at all. I've said it's the only dwarf planet that anyone ever made a serious effort to PREVENT it being labelled as such. Even Ceres didn't get that kind of treatment during the brief period before it was reclassified an "asteroid." (By the way, the term "asteroid" was coined in the first place for the same reason as "dwarf planet," mainly because astronomers wanted a new term for "things that wander the sky but aren't planets or comets").
Politics got involved because scientists felt they had something professionally invested in Pluto and the redefinition was a threat to them. The IAU chose not to care, and the rest of us never really did.
Isn't that so infinitely more worth talking about than all this crap about labels and the media and the IAU?
Sure it is. Just one problem though.
THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT PLUTO.
I haven't seen a "dwarf planets" thread in a couple of months. Probably won't be seeing one until Dawn gets to Ceres. I'm happy to wait.
Maybe it's time to bring back "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?" on TV. Even as an adult, I loved that show.
These convoluted sentences seem much harder to remember than the actual planets' names.
The only reason I even need that is I keep forgetting the order of Uranus and Neptune.
