Wow! This guy is an asshole!

[Daedalus12]

the Society for the Preservation of Pluto as a Planet,

Good god. I thought I've heard it all.

I don't think Pluto would give a shit if it has lost its status as a planet.

Just as a clarification I consider taxonomy as the most rubbish branch of science.

 

[Trekker4747]

the Society for the Preservation of Pluto as a Planet,

Good god. I thought I've heard it all.

I don't think Pluto would give a shit if it has lost its status as a planet.

Just as a clarification I consider taxonomy as the most rubbish branch of science.

I think the worry is by not making Pluto a planet anymore it'll be "forgotten" like Ceres was. It'll be pushed back into the fuzzy background, not names in lists of planets, and it'll just become "another chunk of ice" in the distance.

I fail to see why it, Ceres, Eres and other cannot be planets. What's wrong with having dozens of "planets" in out Solar System? Wha disqualifies Pluto as a "planet"? It's a large body that orbits the sun and has its own atmosphere and surface features.

What reasons are threre that it's NOT a planet. "Oh there's larger bodies around that we don't call planets."

TF?

I say Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune aren't planets. Considering they're nothing more than big balls of gas.

So there!

 

[Noname Given]

There's no objective definition for the term "planet", other than what people say. It's only a matter of which people you listen to. If you don't go by anything that people say, it means you're making up your own definition.

Actually, just the opposite is true. What people say is scientifically irrelevant; in the long run, what determines how scientific concepts get defined is what the actual objective evidence shows. People used to say that Andromeda was a "spiral nebula," believing it was a cloud of gas fairly nearby. But the evidence showed tht it was actually a whole galaxy even bigger than our own, made up of hundreds of billions of stars and a good three million light-years distant. What people said was absolutely, profoundly irrelevant to what it actually was. Science is about evidence, not opinion.

Scientists: Sucking the fun out of the solar system. Enjoy.

There are 9 planets. Sure, there are also hundreds, or thousands of planet-sized things out there, but screw them. If they get a cool name they can be planets also.

You know... for centuries, people thought there were seven planets, including the Sun and Moon, which all circled the Earth. Then they figured out that the Earth was one of six known planets circling the Sun. Then Uranus and Neptune were discovered, and people thought there were seven planets, then eight. Then Ceres and the next few asteroids were discovered, and they were initially assumed to be planets, and the number went up to ten, twelve, ultimately dozens of planets in our system. It was over sixty years before Ceres and its kin were redefined as non-planets (based on the growing evidence proving that they were far smaller than originally assumed) and the number "officially" fell to eight. Then, a mere 78 years ago, Pluto was discovered and called a planet, and we started thinking there were nine. Now we've discovered Eris, which is bigger than Pluto, and it's very likely that the 98% of trans-Neptunian bodies we haven't discovered yet contain dozens of other bodies bigger than Pluto. Maybe even as big as Mars or Earth.

There's nothing special or constant about the idea of there being nine planets. Heck, I have relatives who were alive when we thought there were eight planets. Our estimates of the number of planets have varied many times in the past, and will change again in the future. It's illogical to have any attachment to a particular number of planets just because it's the one you're used to. There's nothing special about the old and familiar. Surely it's more wondrous to embrace the new, to celebrate the discovery of new planets rather than closing one's mind to the idea of changing an old assumption.

There's an assumption that there are objects the size of Earth or Mars past Neptune? Sorry, IF that is the case; any such object of that size would have to b classed as a planet.

 

[Meredith]

I'm watching a speical on Pluto, and one of the people they're talking to (on the side of Pluto not being a planet) is Dr. Neil Tyson. And... WOW this guy is an asshole.

The special is "Last Planet From Our Sun" and the guy just comes across to me as a great, big, DB! I mean yeah it's all fine and good he doesn't want Pluto to be a planet. Whatever. But the way he comes across... WOW

I like Tyson, he is a great example to young children on what to do with their lives. Study hard and become an astronomer.

 

[James Bond]

And actually, Dr. Tyson is one of the most well-versed, intelligent people out there on the subject.

No kidding. I'm genuinely surprised to see that anyone could think he's an asshole.

Half of his reputation is based on the fact that he's able to interpret astrophysics to laymen in a manner that's understandable without being condescending.

That's his whole deal.

Absolutely. I'm a big fan of Dr. Tyson, and greatly respect him.

 

[Trekker4747]

And actually, Dr. Tyson is one of the most well-versed, intelligent people out there on the subject.

No kidding. I'm genuinely surprised to see that anyone could think he's an asshole.

Half of his reputation is based on the fact that he's able to interpret astrophysics to laymen in a manner that's understandable without being condescending.

That's his whole deal.

Absolutely. I'm a big fan of Dr. Tyson, and greatly respect him.

I dunno. He just came across to me as a big-headed jerk who WAS condescending.

 

[Christopher]

My definition of a planet: Thiiiiiiiiiis Big, and named after a Greek/Roman god.

That means the Earth isn't a planet!

Well, it isn't a planet by the IAU's definition either, since it hasn't cleared its orbit entirely of other bodies. Which is why so few planetary scientists take the IAU's definition at all seriously.

Okay, I was oversimplifying. I didn't mean that people's opinions affect scientific facts. However, often you need to have a consensus of opinions in order to establish a definition for something. The definition of the word "planet" is not rigidly grounded in numbers, like a measurement of c, or the value of pi. What we have are the criteria defined by the IAU (thank you, Wiki!):
...
I believe this definition was established in 2006. Before that, what definition did we use? And if it was different than the above, does that mean the scientific facts have changed? Or just people's opinions? (In this case, the opinion of the IAU.) That was all I meant.

The definition was accepted by the IAU itself, for its own purposes of determining what type of name to give to further such bodies as they're discovered. But it's not a definition that fits the scientific reality, so it's not likely to hold up over time. That's what I mean. Opinions don't determine these things, not in science. There are plenty of opinions, sure, but what determines which opinions survive is whether they conform to the facts or not. And what determines which definitions survive is whether they're functional in experiments or categorizations of nature. Science is not a belief system, it's an observational system. So its conclusions are not based on opinions, not in the long run. Consensus means nothing. It has very often happened that the majority of scientists have agreed that something was true and have then had to abandon that consensus when hard evidence proved it wrong.

That's the main reason for all of the wrangling - there was no previous formal definition of what a planet is. It was basically a "know one when you see one" type of thing, with planets and asteroids all being fairly clear. But the obviousness of what a planet is has become a bit less obvious as they learn more about the far outer reaches of the solar system, and also about extrasolar planets. Hence the need for a definition, basically to standardize the terminology so that people all mean the same thing when they say "planet" or "dwarf planet" or what-have-you...

Actually planetary scientists generally don't care that much about the terminology; they find all such bodies equally worth studying regardless of how big they are. Size isn't really a key factor in the definitions used by planetary scientists, just an incidental one at best. The IAU's definition is really based on tradition, on preserving a separation between large bodies that we call planets and small ones that we don't. Which, from their perspective, is important because by IAU convention, the names given to planets follow different rules from the names given to asteroids. But it's not so important to people who actually study planets and how they work.

There's an assumption that there are objects the size of Earth or Mars past Neptune? Sorry, IF that is the case; any such object of that size would have to b classed as a planet.

There's no assumption; science doesn't assume things. Rather, our current theories and models of planet formation suggest that there's a strong possibility such bodies could exist. We now know that during the early stages of planetary system formation, planets or protoplanets can migrate to different orbits than they started from. We know this to be true because we've discovered so many "hot Jupiters," gas giants that orbit very close to their stars even though it's impossible for them to have formed there (because the hydrogen that makes up their atmospheres would've been blown away by the stellar wind and heat at that close range). That proves that planets in a young, forming system can move around. And in so doing, they can knock other protoplanets into very wide orbits. Simulations suggest that our system could have had many more planetary bodies originally than it has now, with many of them getting ejected into the scattered disk or the Oort Cloud when the gas giants migrated to their current positions. (We know of one in particular that crashed into the proto-Earth and blew off debris that formed the Moon.) And there's no reason some of them couldn't have been full-size planets, Earth-sized or even larger. Of course we can't assume they exist out there, but we can't assume they don't. What we've come to understand in the past 15 years is that we haven't discovered most of the Solar System yet. We've just discovered the part inside the Kuiper Belt. We're just barely starting in on the rest. So we don't know what is or isn't out there for us to find.

Cool, huh?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

No kidding. I'm genuinely surprised to see that anyone could think he's an asshole.

Half of his reputation is based on the fact that he's able to interpret astrophysics to laymen in a manner that's understandable without being condescending.

That's his whole deal.

Absolutely. I'm a big fan of Dr. Tyson, and greatly respect him.

I dunno. He just came across to me as a big-headed jerk who WAS condescending.

I don't know; I've seen lots of clips of Dr. Tyson, and he's never once come across that way.

I honestly think you're projecting something onto him.

Cool, huh?

Were you intentionally channeling Dr. Tyson, there?

 

[Christopher]

^^Doubtful. I've only ever seen the guy once or twice and don't have a strong impression of him. I'm of the generation to whom "science popularizer on TV" means Carl Sagan.

 

[Silvercrest]

My definition of a planet: Thiiiiiiiiiis Big, and named after a Greek/Roman god.

That means the Earth isn't a planet!

Well, it isn't a planet by the IAU's definition either, since it hasn't cleared its orbit entirely of other bodies. Which is why so few planetary scientists take the IAU's definition at all seriously.

Whoa. I hadn't realized that.

That's the main reason for all of the wrangling - there was no previous formal definition of what a planet is. It was basically a "know one when you see one" type of thing, with planets and asteroids all being fairly clear. But the obviousness of what a planet is has become a bit less obvious as they learn more about the far outer reaches of the solar system, and also about extrasolar planets. Hence the need for a definition, basically to standardize the terminology so that people all mean the same thing when they say "planet" or "dwarf planet" or what-have-you...

Actually planetary scientists generally don't care that much about the terminology; they find all such bodies equally worth studying regardless of how big they are. Size isn't really a key factor in the definitions used by planetary scientists, just an incidental one at best. The IAU's definition is really based on tradition, on preserving a separation between large bodies that we call planets and small ones that we don't. Which, from their perspective, is important because by IAU convention, the names given to planets follow different rules from the names given to asteroids. But it's not so important to people who actually study planets and how they work.

Ah. That explains the apparent discrepancy between scientific facts and definitions that are based on opinions-- it isn't the scientific community at large that is making those definitions. I can go with that.

 

[Meredith]

^^Doubtful. I've only ever seen the guy once or twice and don't have a strong impression of him. I'm of the generation to whom "science popularizer on TV" means Carl Sagan.

I swear Sagan was wonderful, I think we need someone who can do a great Sagan impression to be hired by the discovery channel full time to do documentaries on the universe. It would be glorious.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

That's the main reason for all of the wrangling - there was no previous formal definition of what a planet is. It was basically a "know one when you see one" type of thing, with planets and asteroids all being fairly clear. But the obviousness of what a planet is has become a bit less obvious as they learn more about the far outer reaches of the solar system, and also about extrasolar planets. Hence the need for a definition, basically to standardize the terminology so that people all mean the same thing when they say "planet" or "dwarf planet" or what-have-you...

Actually planetary scientists generally don't care that much about the terminology; they find all such bodies equally worth studying regardless of how big they are. Size isn't really a key factor in the definitions used by planetary scientists, just an incidental one at best. The IAU's definition is really based on tradition, on preserving a separation between large bodies that we call planets and small ones that we don't. Which, from their perspective, is important because by IAU convention, the names given to planets follow different rules from the names given to asteroids. But it's not so important to people who actually study planets and how they work.

Just because many people don't really care doesn't negate the importance of having consistent terminology and standardized definitions. Imagine if two biologists meant different things when they said "bivalve" or "mammal." The taxonomic classification of what genus belongs in which subfamily is irrelevant to my research, personally, but I'm glad that there is a small group of paleontologists who do care about the minutiae of taxonomic classification and are keeping everything straight. It's the same here - the terminology has little to do with most people's research or the intrinsic interest of the planetary body - but having a consistent terminology is still important and it's good that a small subset of planetary scientists and astronomers are working on definitions. It's not glamorous work (except on those rare occasions when you deal with things in the public consciousness like planets), and I find taxonomy actually excruciatingly dull, but it's important nonetheless. I'm just glad there are other people to do it!

-MEC

 

[The Borg Queen]

I prefer the term "Planette".

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

^^Doubtful. I've only ever seen the guy once or twice and don't have a strong impression of him. I'm of the generation to whom "science popularizer on TV" means Carl Sagan.

Oh, okay. Dr. Tyson has his Sagan-like moments.

"Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us."

— Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Squiggy]

Yeah, I figured we'd get there eventually, Bad Bishop. :thumbsup: We may have a few bumps in the road, but we do get there eventually.

And actually, Dr. Tyson is one of the most well-versed, intelligent people out there on the subject. One thing I'd love to see is him and Dr. Michio Kaku in a discussion of cosmology. I've had the privilege of meeting Dr. Kaku (wonderful man, amazing to talk with, and has an ability to explain the most complicated theories in manners that even non-physicists can relate), but not Dr. Tyson yet, even though I'm a member of the museum where his Rose Center resides.

I've talked with Tyson a bit...he's a good guy. Not at all an "asshole".

 

[TerriO]

No kidding. I'm genuinely surprised to see that anyone could think he's an asshole.

Half of his reputation is based on the fact that he's able to interpret astrophysics to laymen in a manner that's understandable without being condescending.

That's his whole deal.

Absolutely. I'm a big fan of Dr. Tyson, and greatly respect him.

I dunno. He just came across to me as a big-headed jerk who WAS condescending.

Oh, trust me, I've met more than a couple of scientists who ARE condescending assholes, but Dr. Tyson always comes across (at least to me) as someone who's very passionate about his work, and that tends to make his speaking a bit more forceful than you'd expect. That may be where the condescending notion is coming from.

 

[Christopher]

Just because many people don't really care doesn't negate the importance of having consistent terminology and standardized definitions. Imagine if two biologists meant different things when they said "bivalve" or "mammal." The taxonomic classification of what genus belongs in which subfamily is irrelevant to my research, personally, but I'm glad that there is a small group of paleontologists who do care about the minutiae of taxonomic classification and are keeping everything straight. It's the same here - the terminology has little to do with most people's research or the intrinsic interest of the planetary body - but having a consistent terminology is still important and it's good that a small subset of planetary scientists and astronomers are working on definitions.

Well, I agree with you up until the last part. A standardized terminology is good, but it's not good to have a small subset of scientists coming up with proclamations rather than letting a consensus definition arise based on observation, evidence, and practical usage (an "open-source" approach, as some planetary scientists are calling it). Besides, the IAU has very few planetary scientists in its number, so the people who created this definition of planets are really operating outside their area of expertise. Would you want the definition of "mammal" to be determined by a few dozen botanists based on whatever arbitrary standards the botanists thought were important?

Oh, okay. Dr. Tyson has his Sagan-like moments.

"Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us."

— Neil deGrasse Tyson

Sagan said that so much more elegantly and concisely. "We are starstuff."

I mean, "traceable to the crucibles?" Ouch!

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Just because many people don't really care doesn't negate the importance of having consistent terminology and standardized definitions. Imagine if two biologists meant different things when they said "bivalve" or "mammal." The taxonomic classification of what genus belongs in which subfamily is irrelevant to my research, personally, but I'm glad that there is a small group of paleontologists who do care about the minutiae of taxonomic classification and are keeping everything straight. It's the same here - the terminology has little to do with most people's research or the intrinsic interest of the planetary body - but having a consistent terminology is still important and it's good that a small subset of planetary scientists and astronomers are working on definitions.

Well, I agree with you up until the last part. A standardized terminology is good, but it's not good to have a small subset of scientists coming up with proclamations rather than letting a consensus definition arise based on observation, evidence, and practical usage (an "open-source" approach, as some planetary scientists are calling it). Besides, the IAU has very few planetary scientists in its number, so the people who created this definition of planets are really operating outside their area of expertise. Would you want the definition of "mammal" to be determined by a few dozen botanists based on whatever arbitrary standards the botanists thought were important?

Unfortunately it will always be a small subset of a group that defines things, mostly because the majority doesn't really care. It's that way with paleontology, and I suspect that the majority of planetary scientists are also more concerned with studying the interesting stuff rather than working on boring definitions. But I agree that it is important that specialists in whatever field are the ones who make the definitions.

As for working from observations and evidence - those are constantly improving so you can always make the argument that it would be best to wait. I see nothing wrong with making a definition now based on our best understanding and evidence, and then emending that definition when (and if) necessary. It's worked for taxonomic classification, which is continually being refined.

-MEC

 

[Christopher]

^^Yeah, but the IAU definition isn't based on our best understanding and evidence. That's the problem. Even the understanding and evidence we already have can poke plenty of holes in it.

And of course it's not a binding definition anyway. The IAU is the group that names new stuff, but it doesn't have any authority to impose its definition; anyone who doesn't like it is free to disregard it, and many planetary scientists do. So the "open source" process is already happening -- the overall consensus of the community is developing its own usage regardless of what the small subset declared.

 

[Tobin_Dax]

Well, I agree with you up until the last part. A standardized terminology is good, but it's not good to have a small subset of scientists coming up with proclamations rather than letting a consensus definition arise based on observation, evidence, and practical usage (an "open-source" approach, as some planetary scientists are calling it). Besides, the IAU has very few planetary scientists in its number, so the people who created this definition of planets are really operating outside their area of expertise. Would you want the definition of "mammal" to be determined by a few dozen botanists based on whatever arbitrary standards the botanists thought were important?

I'm getting tired of reading all of this, Christopher. But right now, I'm only going to correct you here, where you are way off. In the IAU press release, they list six committee members. Here's what I could find about each of them:

Richard Binzel - A prof. of planetary sciences at MIT

Junichi Watanabe - I found a publication list full of papers on comets with her as an author

Iwan Williams - He's done research on formation and evolution of planetary systems.

Owen Gingerich - An authority on Copernicus and Kepler

Ron Ekers - extragalactic astronomy

Catherine Cesarsky - astrophysicist, with no planetary research

The first four do research in planetary sciences or areas related enough to count for equivalent expertise on this panel. Only 1/3 of this group are "botanists."


I'm guessing Geoff Marcy and Michael Brown are among the unhappy planetary scientists you've been referring to. Could you give me links to statements from other unhappy planetary scientists? You seem to know of many more.