4 ms·

The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IA

The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IAU definition) should be used in non-astronomical contexts. Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. An IAU classification shouldn't be used to try and retroactively change that, because the IAU does not have control over history and culture. It's a fun fact (did you know that Pluto is not classified as a planet by astronomers?) not a diktat. Similarly, a banana is 'officially' a berry, which means that it is classified as a berry by botanists. This does not mean it is considered a berry in any other contexts. If you told someone you had made a berry crumble and it was filled with bananas, you would look strange. We have countless examples of this (often focused around food): a tomato does not belong in a fruit salad no matter what botanists say. Different terms are used with different specificity in different settings. Language and culture and [older disciplines] are not governed by the rules of [newer disciplines or bodies]. If people with 'I love space' t-shirts would stop "um actually"-ing, no one would have a problem.

ketzu 2mo ago
I wonder how happy each group would be by this solution. Planet as a scientific and non-scientific usage. Conclusively, science class would not teach Pluto as a planet (it should after all stick to the science) and English class will discuss the cultural impact of planet Pluto! Maybe write poems about the importance and impact of 9 word mnemonics? Sounds fun. My headcanon is that people would hate it so so much! I can't wait to see that as a distant observer.
- odyssey7 2mo ago
  This would be a really good discussion topic in schools. People need to understand the dynamic between science and society, because that is an important part of how the world works today. Pluto is an exemplar. And also, the value of culture. It might not be a scientific result, but it still shapes our experience of the world. Pluto is beloved.
  - autoexec 2mo ago
    Pluto makes for a great lesson about science itself. Our view of the universe we live in changes over time as we get more information about it. Children should learn to expect that and to understand that it isn't a bad thing, or a flaw with science, but a vital part of the process and when it happens things are working as intended. That means that today Pluto isn't a planet, even though for a small time it used to be considered one, because we learned more about the bodies in our solar system and it no longer made sense to call Pluto a planet. We can explain to children why it shows up in our history, and how we've moved on. It honestly doesn't have to be a bunch of drama. The problem will pretty much go away after the current generation who grew up learning about Pluto as a planet dies off and gets replaced by a generation who always knew that there were only 8 planets in our solar system. Hopefully they'll also be better prepared to accept changes that come from better understanding.
    - odyssey7 2mo ago
      I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. I’d have to point out that Pluto both is and is not a planet, depending on the context — it depends on whom you ask and the situation in which you ask. What would you say to scientists and laypersons who consider Pluto to be a planet? How would you persuade them to your own viewpoint? Please give at least three examples and use at least three paragraphs.
      - autoexec 2mo ago
        Pluto is a dwarf planet. It feels like less of a "is and is not" situation, and more of an "isn't, but was once thought to be" situation. Some people remember being told that it was a planet when they were kids and they cling to that even though we've learned that it doesn't make sense to call it a planet anymore. Apart from that it shows up as a planet in literature, almost all of which was written before we knew better, just like how the idea of earth being at the center of the universe shows up in literature and was once a part of our culture. The geocentric model had passionate holdouts too, but we've mostly moved on from that idea since and I think we're better off for it. For scientists and laypersons who aren't just holding onto "planet" for sentimental reasons, I'd recommend the book "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming"
zdragnar 2mo ago
Peanuts, cashews, almonds, walnuts, pecans, Brazil nuts and pistachios are culinary nuts but NOT botanical nuts. Botanical berries: Bananas, tomatoes, grapes, cucumbers, eggplants, avocados and peppers, but NOT strawberries, raspberries, blackberries or mulberries. Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words.
- odyssey7 2mo ago
  Well, the thing is, nobody got told, out of nowhere, that the “honorable strawberries” were now called simply “mildly honored straw,” because a committee of so-called experts had expressed their will, and that now everybody had to say “mildly honored straw” instead of “honorable strawberries,” or else they would be *incorrect*, because the science league said so. The word “planet” signifying a certain reverence, and the fact that a scientific body was now policing everyday language — for the apparently petty reason that we should not honor Pluto as we once did — it was quite a misstep for how people in the public might view science going forward. Unless, perhaps, the idea was to make people more skeptical of scientific results and statements.
  - bryanlarsen 2mo ago
    The alternative was to announce "we now have 10 more planets, and there are probably a bunch more, and we'll probably never really get a definitive number". That would also have had an impact on the public view of science. Perhaps not as bad, but it would have had an impact.
    - odyssey7 2mo ago
      Planets predate modern astronomy. You have to negotiate with the public if you want to change what “planet” means. To most people, in most contexts, it means 8 or 9 specific things that they have specific ideas about, not a theoretical category of infinite objects.
      - bryanlarsen 2mo ago
odyssey7 2mo ago
You’ve explained something very well that I hope certain groups of people will try to internalize.
j45 2mo ago
My understanding was part of the definition was changed thereby recategorizing Pluto?
ludicrousdispla 2mo ago
While reading your comment it occurred to me that virtually all reporting on (or talking about) science involves applying it to an unsuitable context. Schrödinger's cat is probably the most prolific example of this.
- p-e-w 2mo ago
  [flagged]
bob1029 2mo ago
> The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance This is the actual problem everywhere.
concinds 2mo ago
Which would make the article's subjects "weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that" a non-astronomical definition be used in an astronomical context.
nephihaha 2mo ago
The term "fish" is a case in point. Traditionally, the term means a creature which lives underwater, which would include whales and dolphins, and indeed used to, despite being mammals. It gets worse. Whales and dolphins are more closely related to certain fish than those fish are related to some other fish. (As are we by the way.) There are also some fish, such as lungfish or certain eels which can spend more time out of water than whales and dolphins can. Some fish can even breathe air, which undermines another assumption about whales etc. For some reason, I rarely hear fewer people objecting to jellyfish or shellfish being referred to as fish, even though these are more distantly related to fish than mammals are. So biologically, the term "fish" doesn't make much sense.
- wpollock 2mo ago
  Your point is fishy. But if the IAU definition changes to "a body orbiting a star", we can rename them to "paparazzi".
  - nephihaha 2mo ago
    That was quite funny. I think my point is that terms are not always as precise as people think they are. As others have stated, there appears to be some kind of spectrum. Some of the inner planets have more in common with the moons of Jupiter and Saturn in some regards, than they do with Jupiter and Saturn themselves. For a start they have a surface that can be landed on. (Maybe not so much in the case of Venus or Io!!!) Pluto's most obvious problem is that it is too similar in size to a large number of other objects. But it does have some resemblances to planets and larger moons. I'm not keen on the phrase "dwarf planet" because it makes me think of objects that are much smaller than Pluto is.
BeetleB 2mo ago
> Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. A very brief period of history. Give it 50 years and the number of people who will call it a planet will be close to 0. Let's not overstate Pluto's significance in culture. People call it a planet only because that's what they were taught in school. Not because of other (very few) cultural references. As it has been dropped from the curriculum, so shall it be dropped from people's minds. Compared to the other planets it's rarely referred to in stories, etc. It has very little significance in today's culture beyond the fact that it was taught in school. That's not the case for something like Jupiter. If they decided tomorrow that gas giants are no longer planets, it will remain in arts and culture. Pluto? Highly unlikely. I don't think my kid knows about Pluto. That doesn't bother me in the slightest.
- alnwlsn 2mo ago
  This is not insignificant. The period of Pluto's planethood represents just about 0.76% of recorded human history, but that does cover around 7% of the total number of people who have ever lived, about 10x the 'average'. Of course a lot of culture comes out of that. I think the 20th century will be important to historians for a very very long time.
  - BeetleB 2mo ago
    > The period of Pluto's planethood represents just about 0.76% of recorded human history, but that does cover around 7% of the total number of people who have ever lived, about 10x the 'average'. Of course a lot of culture comes out of that. It's an odd way to analyze it. Plenty of things have been known for longer and it doesn't bother us if they're not taught in school, etc.
- odyssey7 2mo ago
  The meaning of a word comes from how its speakers use it. When people stop referring to Pluto as a planet, it will cease to be one. Until then, we are living in a reality in which Pluto both is a planet and is not a planet, depending on the context.
  - 2mo ago

ketzu 2mo ago

I wonder how happy each group would be by this solution. Planet as a scientific and non-scientific usage. Conclusively, science class would not teach Pluto as a planet (it should after all stick to the science) and English class will discuss the cultural impact of planet Pluto! Maybe write poems about the importance and impact of 9 word mnemonics? Sounds fun. My headcanon is that people would hate it so so much! I can't wait to see that as a distant observer.

odyssey7 2mo ago
This would be a really good discussion topic in schools. People need to understand the dynamic between science and society, because that is an important part of how the world works today. Pluto is an exemplar. And also, the value of culture. It might not be a scientific result, but it still shapes our experience of the world. Pluto is beloved.
- autoexec 2mo ago
  Pluto makes for a great lesson about science itself. Our view of the universe we live in changes over time as we get more information about it. Children should learn to expect that and to understand that it isn't a bad thing, or a flaw with science, but a vital part of the process and when it happens things are working as intended. That means that today Pluto isn't a planet, even though for a small time it used to be considered one, because we learned more about the bodies in our solar system and it no longer made sense to call Pluto a planet. We can explain to children why it shows up in our history, and how we've moved on. It honestly doesn't have to be a bunch of drama. The problem will pretty much go away after the current generation who grew up learning about Pluto as a planet dies off and gets replaced by a generation who always knew that there were only 8 planets in our solar system. Hopefully they'll also be better prepared to accept changes that come from better understanding.
  - odyssey7 2mo ago
    I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. I’d have to point out that Pluto both is and is not a planet, depending on the context — it depends on whom you ask and the situation in which you ask. What would you say to scientists and laypersons who consider Pluto to be a planet? How would you persuade them to your own viewpoint? Please give at least three examples and use at least three paragraphs.
    - autoexec 2mo ago
      Pluto is a dwarf planet. It feels like less of a "is and is not" situation, and more of an "isn't, but was once thought to be" situation. Some people remember being told that it was a planet when they were kids and they cling to that even though we've learned that it doesn't make sense to call it a planet anymore. Apart from that it shows up as a planet in literature, almost all of which was written before we knew better, just like how the idea of earth being at the center of the universe shows up in literature and was once a part of our culture. The geocentric model had passionate holdouts too, but we've mostly moved on from that idea since and I think we're better off for it. For scientists and laypersons who aren't just holding onto "planet" for sentimental reasons, I'd recommend the book "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming"

zdragnar 2mo ago

Peanuts, cashews, almonds, walnuts, pecans, Brazil nuts and pistachios are culinary nuts but NOT botanical nuts. Botanical berries: Bananas, tomatoes, grapes, cucumbers, eggplants, avocados and peppers, but NOT strawberries, raspberries, blackberries or mulberries. Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words.

odyssey7 2mo ago
Well, the thing is, nobody got told, out of nowhere, that the “honorable strawberries” were now called simply “mildly honored straw,” because a committee of so-called experts had expressed their will, and that now everybody had to say “mildly honored straw” instead of “honorable strawberries,” or else they would be *incorrect*, because the science league said so. The word “planet” signifying a certain reverence, and the fact that a scientific body was now policing everyday language — for the apparently petty reason that we should not honor Pluto as we once did — it was quite a misstep for how people in the public might view science going forward. Unless, perhaps, the idea was to make people more skeptical of scientific results and statements.
- bryanlarsen 2mo ago
  The alternative was to announce "we now have 10 more planets, and there are probably a bunch more, and we'll probably never really get a definitive number". That would also have had an impact on the public view of science. Perhaps not as bad, but it would have had an impact.
  - odyssey7 2mo ago
    Planets predate modern astronomy. You have to negotiate with the public if you want to change what “planet” means. To most people, in most contexts, it means 8 or 9 specific things that they have specific ideas about, not a theoretical category of infinite objects.
    - bryanlarsen 2mo ago

odyssey7 2mo ago

You’ve explained something very well that I hope certain groups of people will try to internalize.

j45 2mo ago

My understanding was part of the definition was changed thereby recategorizing Pluto?

ludicrousdispla 2mo ago

While reading your comment it occurred to me that virtually all reporting on (or talking about) science involves applying it to an unsuitable context. Schrödinger's cat is probably the most prolific example of this.

p-e-w 2mo ago
[flagged]

bob1029 2mo ago

> The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance This is the actual problem everywhere.

concinds 2mo ago

Which would make the article's subjects "weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that" a non-astronomical definition be used in an astronomical context.

nephihaha 2mo ago

The term "fish" is a case in point. Traditionally, the term means a creature which lives underwater, which would include whales and dolphins, and indeed used to, despite being mammals. It gets worse. Whales and dolphins are more closely related to certain fish than those fish are related to some other fish. (As are we by the way.) There are also some fish, such as lungfish or certain eels which can spend more time out of water than whales and dolphins can. Some fish can even breathe air, which undermines another assumption about whales etc. For some reason, I rarely hear fewer people objecting to jellyfish or shellfish being referred to as fish, even though these are more distantly related to fish than mammals are. So biologically, the term "fish" doesn't make much sense.

wpollock 2mo ago
Your point is fishy. But if the IAU definition changes to "a body orbiting a star", we can rename them to "paparazzi".
- nephihaha 2mo ago
  That was quite funny. I think my point is that terms are not always as precise as people think they are. As others have stated, there appears to be some kind of spectrum. Some of the inner planets have more in common with the moons of Jupiter and Saturn in some regards, than they do with Jupiter and Saturn themselves. For a start they have a surface that can be landed on. (Maybe not so much in the case of Venus or Io!!!) Pluto's most obvious problem is that it is too similar in size to a large number of other objects. But it does have some resemblances to planets and larger moons. I'm not keen on the phrase "dwarf planet" because it makes me think of objects that are much smaller than Pluto is.

BeetleB 2mo ago

> Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. A very brief period of history. Give it 50 years and the number of people who will call it a planet will be close to 0. Let's not overstate Pluto's significance in culture. People call it a planet only because that's what they were taught in school. Not because of other (very few) cultural references. As it has been dropped from the curriculum, so shall it be dropped from people's minds. Compared to the other planets it's rarely referred to in stories, etc. It has very little significance in today's culture beyond the fact that it was taught in school. That's not the case for something like Jupiter. If they decided tomorrow that gas giants are no longer planets, it will remain in arts and culture. Pluto? Highly unlikely. I don't think my kid knows about Pluto. That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

alnwlsn 2mo ago
This is not insignificant. The period of Pluto's planethood represents just about 0.76% of recorded human history, but that does cover around 7% of the total number of people who have ever lived, about 10x the 'average'. Of course a lot of culture comes out of that. I think the 20th century will be important to historians for a very very long time.
- BeetleB 2mo ago
  > The period of Pluto's planethood represents just about 0.76% of recorded human history, but that does cover around 7% of the total number of people who have ever lived, about 10x the 'average'. Of course a lot of culture comes out of that. It's an odd way to analyze it. Plenty of things have been known for longer and it doesn't bother us if they're not taught in school, etc.
odyssey7 2mo ago
The meaning of a word comes from how its speakers use it. When people stop referring to Pluto as a planet, it will cease to be one. Until then, we are living in a reality in which Pluto both is a planet and is not a planet, depending on the context.
- 2mo ago