3 ms·

We should add those planets to the official list too. Gauss considered Ceres to be a planet and I believe him over living astronomers. The motivation for this

by ryao 1y ago

We should add those planets to the official list too. Gauss considered Ceres to be a planet and I believe him over living astronomers. The motivation for this dwarf planet nonsense was to try to keep the official planet list small so children could memorize them with ease, but that is absurd. We do not remove countries from the map to make it easier for children to learn geography and there are over 100 of them.

nonethewiser 1y ago
I mean… there has to be more to it than that right? But im also open to being red pilled on pluto.
- gonzobonzo 1y ago
  That's mostly it. If you want to dive into the details, I recommend this debate[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFtgZP6Aa8&t=803s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFtgZP6Aa8&t=803s
db48x 1y ago
For a generation, schoolchildren everywhere memorized the names of the 12 planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Juno, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The list was stable at 12 for about 40 years, but started growing again in the middle of the century. By 1868 there were 100 named asteroids. Not a single one has people living on it, so making children memorize their names was seen as a waste of time. Teach them about the asteroid belt and then move on to more important things. Likewise with the TNO: teach them about the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud and then move on to more important things. No need to make them memorize Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, and Orcus, nor any of the hundreds of other named TNO.
- ryao 1y ago
  Can anyone justify why children should be required to learn about anything outside of our atmosphere beyond the sun and moon at school? It is trivia with no practical applications. It is not logical to design classification schemes for ultimately useless knowledge based on the learning ability of children.

by ryao 1y ago

nonethewiser 1y ago

I mean… there has to be more to it than that right? But im also open to being red pilled on pluto.

gonzobonzo 1y ago
That's mostly it. If you want to dive into the details, I recommend this debate[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFtgZP6Aa8&t=803s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFtgZP6Aa8&t=803s

db48x 1y ago

For a generation, schoolchildren everywhere memorized the names of the 12 planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Juno, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The list was stable at 12 for about 40 years, but started growing again in the middle of the century. By 1868 there were 100 named asteroids. Not a single one has people living on it, so making children memorize their names was seen as a waste of time. Teach them about the asteroid belt and then move on to more important things. Likewise with the TNO: teach them about the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud and then move on to more important things. No need to make them memorize Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, and Orcus, nor any of the hundreds of other named TNO.

ryao 1y ago
Can anyone justify why children should be required to learn about anything outside of our atmosphere beyond the sun and moon at school? It is trivia with no practical applications. It is not logical to design classification schemes for ultimately useless knowledge based on the learning ability of children.