3 ms·

What they meant when they said "planets" was the 8 (previously 9, previously to that 8, previously 7...) known and named planets in our own solar system. A hypo

What they meant when they said "planets" was the 8 (previously 9, previously to that 8, previously 7...) known and named planets in our own solar system. A hypothetical "Journal of Planets" that was actually about solar system astronomy wouldn't necessarily have known what to do with a new paper about 51 Pegasi b published 30 years ago. They're thinking "when we said planets, we actually always meant solar system planets, it just never came up until now". The reviewer of this paper is saying that by biology they always meant naturally evolved cellular biology, not synthetic biology - there's just never been an example of the latter before. I think the take is wrong, the receiving journals should be excited to expand their scope rather than frustratedly redefine their scope more narrowly, but definitions and categorization are hard.

jibal 3mo ago
> What they meant when they said "planets" Who is "they", and how do you know what they meant? The relevant fact is that the claim "Exoplanets also aren't planets" is simply wrong -- exoplanets are by definition planets outside the solar system. It's like claiming that a brown furple isn't a furple -- the claim is wrong, regardless of what one thinks a furple is. > The reviewer of this paper is saying that by biology they always meant naturally evolved cellular biology, not synthetic biology - there's just never been an example of the latter before. They aren't saying that, and that isn't true.
- ben_w 3mo ago
  > exoplanets are by definition planets outside the solar system. It's like claiming that a brown furple isn't a furple -- the claim is wrong, regardless of what one thinks a furple is. If only language was so logical. While I happen to agree that exoplanets are planets, as with my point in the other comment, I aver the stronger claim ("regardless") does not follow in this context. Stonehenge, after which the concept of a henge is named, does not meet the current archeological definition of a henge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge Jerusalem artichokes are neither artichokes nor from Jerusalem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_artichoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_artichoke Guinea pigs are not pigs and are not from Guinea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig The "mincemeat" in a mince pie is, these days, usually vegetarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincemeat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincemeat Chinese checkers is German and plays nothing like checkers. Peanuts are not nuts, strawberries are not berries, hamburgers do not generally contain ham, a killer whale is actually a dolphin, etc.
  - jibal 3mo ago
    I don't need an off topic point-missing lecture on how language works that could have and might as well have been written by a clanker. The fact remains that exoplanets are by definition a type of planet, regardless of whether Jerusalem artichokes are a type of artichoke -- proper names as adjectives work differently, and the "mincemeat" example is simply bad faith ... actually, the whole pushback here is bad faith argumentation. And "gas giants are failed stars and shouldn't count as planets" is completely irrelevant -- at best it's a fallacy of denial of the antecedent. I won't respond further.
antonvs 3mo ago
The argument you describe is as if Neil deGrasse Tyson took a course about “How to be even more extremely and inappropriately pedantic,” and decided he wanted to become the undisputed world expert at that. Anyone who says “exoplanets aren’t planets” really needs to think a little harder about the actual meaning of what they’re saying.

jibal 3mo ago

> What they meant when they said "planets" Who is "they", and how do you know what they meant? The relevant fact is that the claim "Exoplanets also aren't planets" is simply wrong -- exoplanets are by definition planets outside the solar system. It's like claiming that a brown furple isn't a furple -- the claim is wrong, regardless of what one thinks a furple is. > The reviewer of this paper is saying that by biology they always meant naturally evolved cellular biology, not synthetic biology - there's just never been an example of the latter before. They aren't saying that, and that isn't true.

ben_w 3mo ago
> exoplanets are by definition planets outside the solar system. It's like claiming that a brown furple isn't a furple -- the claim is wrong, regardless of what one thinks a furple is. If only language was so logical. While I happen to agree that exoplanets are planets, as with my point in the other comment, I aver the stronger claim ("regardless") does not follow in this context. Stonehenge, after which the concept of a henge is named, does not meet the current archeological definition of a henge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge Jerusalem artichokes are neither artichokes nor from Jerusalem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_artichoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_artichoke Guinea pigs are not pigs and are not from Guinea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig The "mincemeat" in a mince pie is, these days, usually vegetarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincemeat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincemeat Chinese checkers is German and plays nothing like checkers. Peanuts are not nuts, strawberries are not berries, hamburgers do not generally contain ham, a killer whale is actually a dolphin, etc.
- jibal 3mo ago
  I don't need an off topic point-missing lecture on how language works that could have and might as well have been written by a clanker. The fact remains that exoplanets are by definition a type of planet, regardless of whether Jerusalem artichokes are a type of artichoke -- proper names as adjectives work differently, and the "mincemeat" example is simply bad faith ... actually, the whole pushback here is bad faith argumentation. And "gas giants are failed stars and shouldn't count as planets" is completely irrelevant -- at best it's a fallacy of denial of the antecedent. I won't respond further.

antonvs 3mo ago

The argument you describe is as if Neil deGrasse Tyson took a course about “How to be even more extremely and inappropriately pedantic,” and decided he wanted to become the undisputed world expert at that. Anyone who says “exoplanets aren’t planets” really needs to think a little harder about the actual meaning of what they’re saying.