32 ms·

The problem is that the word “planet” refers both to cultural symbols — mythology, gods, archetypes, and the heavens — and to objects of scientific study. Those

The problem is that the word “planet” refers both to cultural symbols — mythology, gods, archetypes, and the heavens — and to objects of scientific study. Those are different domains, and one of them is cultural heritage, and the other is irritating when it tries to infringe on the first one. There’s no need for a god complex. Stop picking and choosing which planets are real. Scientists can create their own, more precise words for things. Planets are sacred. Things that clear their orbits are not. You can’t subdue the public into giving up their gods out of difference to science — you’re just losing people.

zzo38computer 1mo ago
I think not quite, although many planets have the names of the gods. They called them planets due to their motion, so it is still called that. The use of the same word in different contexts can have different usages and different (but sometimes related) meanings. "Planet" is used differently in astrology than it is in science (astronomy); this isn't a contradiction (although, like any words, can sometimes result in confusion if you do not make the meaning clearly).
Timon3 1mo ago
Why would a change today be such a violation of a sacred concept, when Pluto was added not even a century ago? If anything, it seems like the scientists back then had a god complex, and this would be rectifying their mistake.
- odyssey7 1mo ago
  Scientists can do whatever they like. The problem is when they try to exert control over other scientists and members of the general public. We have both freedom of speech and freedom of association, which means the IAU has no authority to govern my own speech, and it’s irritating that so many people seem gleeful to tell me otherwise.
  - Timon3 1mo ago
    How is the IAU trying to exert control or asserting any authority to govern your speech? I'm really having trouble seeing how the IAUs actions are in any way unusual for this kind of scientific organization, so please be specific about the consequences you expect to suffer for not following along. And more importantly, why does the incredibly recent addition of Pluto to the list of planets not fall under scientists "try[ing] to exert control over other scientists and members of the general public"? You'd have a point if the planets were set in stone for hundreds of years, but as-is I can't follow your logic why one is okay and the other is not.
    - odyssey7 1mo ago
      Perhaps the IAU didn’t attempt to exert any influence over the general public and perhaps they have had nothing to do with the legions who have since been irritatingly telling people that their words are scientifically incorrect, as if the IAU is an infallible god of science and that everyone must heed the IAU at all times regardless of whether they are practicing science at the particular moment. We don’t have a problem with armchair scientists correcting people about the 1930s discovery of Pluto and how it was discussed at the time, we have a problem with armchair scientists being aggravating when people want to engage with the idea of Pluto today and refer to it as a planet.
      - Timon3 1mo ago
        Yes, perhaps people follow their own thoughts and opinions, so perhaps they understand and accept the IAU's explanation. Just like people less than 100 years ago perhaps accepted the explanation why scientists are suddenly adding a new ninth planet! But I have a feeling that the problem you see is just a fairly normal social mechanism: if you use words differently from the majority of people, you will keep getting corrected because: - some people might be genuinely trying to troll/aggravate you the way you're describing - BUT: others might genuinely think you've made a mistake and try to correct you, unaware of any discourse - and finally, other people might just disagree and attempt to discuss No conspiracy is necessary to meet plenty of people who disagree, and the level of accusations you're throwing around tells me you might not be able to clearly categorize everyone.

zzo38computer 1mo ago

I think not quite, although many planets have the names of the gods. They called them planets due to their motion, so it is still called that. The use of the same word in different contexts can have different usages and different (but sometimes related) meanings. "Planet" is used differently in astrology than it is in science (astronomy); this isn't a contradiction (although, like any words, can sometimes result in confusion if you do not make the meaning clearly).

Timon3 1mo ago

Why would a change today be such a violation of a sacred concept, when Pluto was added not even a century ago? If anything, it seems like the scientists back then had a god complex, and this would be rectifying their mistake.

odyssey7 1mo ago
Scientists can do whatever they like. The problem is when they try to exert control over other scientists and members of the general public. We have both freedom of speech and freedom of association, which means the IAU has no authority to govern my own speech, and it’s irritating that so many people seem gleeful to tell me otherwise.
- Timon3 1mo ago
  How is the IAU trying to exert control or asserting any authority to govern your speech? I'm really having trouble seeing how the IAUs actions are in any way unusual for this kind of scientific organization, so please be specific about the consequences you expect to suffer for not following along. And more importantly, why does the incredibly recent addition of Pluto to the list of planets not fall under scientists "try[ing] to exert control over other scientists and members of the general public"? You'd have a point if the planets were set in stone for hundreds of years, but as-is I can't follow your logic why one is okay and the other is not.
  - odyssey7 1mo ago
    Perhaps the IAU didn’t attempt to exert any influence over the general public and perhaps they have had nothing to do with the legions who have since been irritatingly telling people that their words are scientifically incorrect, as if the IAU is an infallible god of science and that everyone must heed the IAU at all times regardless of whether they are practicing science at the particular moment. We don’t have a problem with armchair scientists correcting people about the 1930s discovery of Pluto and how it was discussed at the time, we have a problem with armchair scientists being aggravating when people want to engage with the idea of Pluto today and refer to it as a planet.
    - Timon3 1mo ago
      Yes, perhaps people follow their own thoughts and opinions, so perhaps they understand and accept the IAU's explanation. Just like people less than 100 years ago perhaps accepted the explanation why scientists are suddenly adding a new ninth planet! But I have a feeling that the problem you see is just a fairly normal social mechanism: if you use words differently from the majority of people, you will keep getting corrected because: - some people might be genuinely trying to troll/aggravate you the way you're describing - BUT: others might genuinely think you've made a mistake and try to correct you, unaware of any discourse - and finally, other people might just disagree and attempt to discuss No conspiracy is necessary to meet plenty of people who disagree, and the level of accusations you're throwing around tells me you might not be able to clearly categorize everyone.