3 ms·

idk. when the word Planet was redefined such that Pluto was no longer a planet, it kind of ruined the word Planet. It suddenly wasn’t nearly as useful as a word

idk. when the word Planet was redefined such that Pluto was no longer a planet, it kind of ruined the word Planet. It suddenly wasn’t nearly as useful as a word as it used to (even though now it has a precise meaning). For most people that use the word, it won’t matter (and is actually rather exciting) that they keep discovering new planets in our solar system. If they’d treat the word characters the same way, it would only serve to confuse and do no favors to the remaining glyphs.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BlueTemplar 4y ago
This is temporary though, soon people will look at you funny if you say that Pluto is a planet - and/or they might not even have heardof it (though of course that is still worth learning about in an History of Science context). We do NOT keep discovering new planets, rather minor planets (I agree that the term is confusing), more than a million of them discovered in the Solar System now, like the 9007 James Bond.
- runarberg 4y ago
  It could go either way, it is not always that the scientific meaning wins out, especially not when even scientists don’t find the new definition useful. When I think of a planet, I think of a world that has active geology that isn’t a moon (I know excluding moons is arbitrary, and perhaps I shouldn’t do that; but hey, that’s language for you). I honestly don’t care about the orbit, and I bet that when most people think about planets they aren’t thinking about the orbit either, let alone whether the planet has cleared the orbit or not. I doubt that will change.
  - gerikson 4y ago
    > When I think of a planet, I think of a world that has active geology Wouldn't that definition rule out gas giants?
    - runarberg 4y ago
      Yeah, probably strictly... But I’m not a planetary scientist. I’m merely a user of language, and I don’t need to be rigorous in my definitions. And to me the weather patterns on Jupiter is an interesting feature enough to count as geology (even though it is probably not strictly a geology).
    - jameshart 4y ago
      No just that, but whether or not Mars is still geologically active is still an open question. If you admit planets on the basis that they have a history of geological activity, then Ceres is a planet too. I don’t think anybody considers geological activity as particularly useful for classifying things as ‘planet’ or ‘not planet’.
      - runarberg 4y ago
        Why shouldn’t Ceres be a planet? If Pluto gets to be a planet then Ceres is definitely a planet. But there is still active geology on Mars. There is still moisture, winds and ice-caps that are shaping the environment. I consider that to be geologically active. EDIT: And there are actual experts which consider active geology (or something similar) to be a planet, including Anton Petrov (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-2HxrgqUnM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-2HxrgqUnM)
        jameshart 4y ago
        Okay, but then you have to go and figure out which other asteroid and kuiper belt objects are planets. The 'dwarf planet' distinction helps solve this! There are planets - distinctive in that they have clear orbits - and there are dwarf planets, which can be part of belt systems. This is a useful distinction.
        runarberg 4y ago
        Sure it is, but the distinction between terrestrial planets and gas giants are also useful, that doesn’t mean the latter aren’t planets. I think it is fine that there are more objects planets then we can meaningfully count. Loads of things in our language act like that. E.g. a bug can be any number of things, and you know what a bug is by just talking about it. If some insect society then comes up with a meaningful definition of bugs which excludes spiders, that definition isn’t really doing the average user of that word any favor.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BlueTemplar 4y ago

This is temporary though, soon people will look at you funny if you say that Pluto is a planet - and/or they might not even have heardof it (though of course that is still worth learning about in an History of Science context). We do NOT keep discovering new planets, rather minor planets (I agree that the term is confusing), more than a million of them discovered in the Solar System now, like the 9007 James Bond.

runarberg 4y ago
It could go either way, it is not always that the scientific meaning wins out, especially not when even scientists don’t find the new definition useful. When I think of a planet, I think of a world that has active geology that isn’t a moon (I know excluding moons is arbitrary, and perhaps I shouldn’t do that; but hey, that’s language for you). I honestly don’t care about the orbit, and I bet that when most people think about planets they aren’t thinking about the orbit either, let alone whether the planet has cleared the orbit or not. I doubt that will change.
- gerikson 4y ago
  > When I think of a planet, I think of a world that has active geology Wouldn't that definition rule out gas giants?
  - runarberg 4y ago
    Yeah, probably strictly... But I’m not a planetary scientist. I’m merely a user of language, and I don’t need to be rigorous in my definitions. And to me the weather patterns on Jupiter is an interesting feature enough to count as geology (even though it is probably not strictly a geology).
  - jameshart 4y ago
    No just that, but whether or not Mars is still geologically active is still an open question. If you admit planets on the basis that they have a history of geological activity, then Ceres is a planet too. I don’t think anybody considers geological activity as particularly useful for classifying things as ‘planet’ or ‘not planet’.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      Why shouldn’t Ceres be a planet? If Pluto gets to be a planet then Ceres is definitely a planet. But there is still active geology on Mars. There is still moisture, winds and ice-caps that are shaping the environment. I consider that to be geologically active. EDIT: And there are actual experts which consider active geology (or something similar) to be a planet, including Anton Petrov (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-2HxrgqUnM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-2HxrgqUnM)
      - jameshart 4y ago
        Okay, but then you have to go and figure out which other asteroid and kuiper belt objects are planets. The 'dwarf planet' distinction helps solve this! There are planets - distinctive in that they have clear orbits - and there are dwarf planets, which can be part of belt systems. This is a useful distinction.
        runarberg 4y ago
        Sure it is, but the distinction between terrestrial planets and gas giants are also useful, that doesn’t mean the latter aren’t planets. I think it is fine that there are more objects planets then we can meaningfully count. Loads of things in our language act like that. E.g. a bug can be any number of things, and you know what a bug is by just talking about it. If some insect society then comes up with a meaningful definition of bugs which excludes spiders, that definition isn’t really doing the average user of that word any favor.