2 ms·

Peanuts, cashews, almonds, walnuts, pecans, Brazil nuts and pistachios are culinary nuts but NOT botanical nuts. Botanical berries: Bananas, tomatoes, grapes,

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 26d 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 26d 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 26d 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 26d ago
      Few things sound more like more science than "planets". Telling people "Well actually 'planet' isn't a scientific term, it's a historical / cultural term" will also significantly reduce their trust and interest in science.
      - odyssey7 26d ago
        Hey, don’t blame me, blame the IAU for opening that can of worms. I’m just happy calling Pluto a “planet” and would rather the IAU had left me in peace — they’re the ones who want to argue with me about what words I’m supposed to say and when I’m supposed to say them. I’d encourage you to think about the impact of science fiction on interest in science. Culture is an extremely powerful force. I don’t think your concern would bear out.
        bryanlarsen 25d ago
        There was no do nothing option, the IAU didn't open the can of words. 10 new objects that would be called planets under the old definition were discovered. "Doing nothing" would have led to far more significant changes.
        odyssey7 25d ago
        Even if they had to do something, they didn’t need to do what they ended up going for — it was a pretty bad option from a scientific standpoint and a needlessly controversial one. As the article here explains, the 2006 IAU definition doesn’t really make sense or function as a useful model for what a planet is.
      - xigoi 25d ago
        This is similar to how most people would say that mathematics is about numbers, but the word “number” doesn’t even mean anything in math.
    - Dylan16807 26d ago
      > Planets predate modern astronomy. If we're segmenting off "modern astronomy" then Pluto wasn't even discovered yet. And we discovered Ceres long before Pluto. It would be pretty rude to keep excluding Ceres just because we knew about the asteroid belt before we knew about the Kuiper belt.
  - zdragnar 26d ago
    No, the alternative would be to make up some latin sounding words for planets, dwarf planets, etc. and leave the vulgar planet alone to the standard 9 that we all know are planets.
    - odyssey7 26d ago
      This is what should have happened. (And it’s not too late — Pluto will remain with us for a while yet.)
    - ummonk 26d ago
      No that would be an argument to return to the original definition of planets (highly visible celestial objects that migrate across the sky, i.e. the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). If you believe in the "standard 9" you're just insisting on returning to a scientific definition of planets but one that is frozen on our scientific understanding from a few decades ago...
      - odyssey7 26d ago
        As you can see, there are many valid ways to go about understanding what a planet is in a cultural sense.
      - zdragnar 25d ago
        The argument is to not make any changes to what people call planets but to instead have taken the opportunity in 2006 to create a separate classification system. Use something vaguely Latin sounding like planitus or whatever.
        ummonk 24d ago
        Yes, but again, what people call planets was stable for over a thousand years before changing rapidly in the past few centuries (first with the Sun and Moon being removed during the Copernican revolution, then Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta being added before being removed when they discovered a bunch of other asteroids, then Neptune being added, and finally in the last century Pluto being added before being removed after they discovered a bunch of other dwarf planets). If you don't like changes to what people call planets, you should be unrolling all the other changes that have also been made, and go back to the original definition that stood from ~200 BCE-1700 CE.
jerf 26d ago
"Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words." If they could do it all over again probably most of them would. The sciences all grew organically too. Some of these things like "berries" aren't even just the product of one reclassification, they're the product of several over the course of decades or centuries, which is how they get so common-sense silly over time.
- zdragnar 25d ago
  We had the perfect opportunity to introduce new names when the IAU created the "dwarf planet" classification in 2006. That was literally the perfect time to do it all over.
  - odyssey7 25d ago
    Although there may have been a chance from an opportunism standpoint, the wisdom needed to do that well was clearly absent.
Gooblebrai 26d ago
> Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words. Doesn't really matter. The public would end up taking science words for their own purposes to sound legitimate. Look at how "quantum" and "energy" is used in alternative medicine.
- lokar 26d ago
  They really are the “epicenter” of the problem

odyssey7 26d 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 26d 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 26d 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 26d ago
    Few things sound more like more science than "planets". Telling people "Well actually 'planet' isn't a scientific term, it's a historical / cultural term" will also significantly reduce their trust and interest in science.
    - odyssey7 26d ago
      Hey, don’t blame me, blame the IAU for opening that can of worms. I’m just happy calling Pluto a “planet” and would rather the IAU had left me in peace — they’re the ones who want to argue with me about what words I’m supposed to say and when I’m supposed to say them. I’d encourage you to think about the impact of science fiction on interest in science. Culture is an extremely powerful force. I don’t think your concern would bear out.
      - bryanlarsen 25d ago
        There was no do nothing option, the IAU didn't open the can of words. 10 new objects that would be called planets under the old definition were discovered. "Doing nothing" would have led to far more significant changes.
        odyssey7 25d ago
        Even if they had to do something, they didn’t need to do what they ended up going for — it was a pretty bad option from a scientific standpoint and a needlessly controversial one. As the article here explains, the 2006 IAU definition doesn’t really make sense or function as a useful model for what a planet is.
    - xigoi 25d ago
      This is similar to how most people would say that mathematics is about numbers, but the word “number” doesn’t even mean anything in math.
  - Dylan16807 26d ago
    > Planets predate modern astronomy. If we're segmenting off "modern astronomy" then Pluto wasn't even discovered yet. And we discovered Ceres long before Pluto. It would be pretty rude to keep excluding Ceres just because we knew about the asteroid belt before we knew about the Kuiper belt.
- zdragnar 26d ago
  No, the alternative would be to make up some latin sounding words for planets, dwarf planets, etc. and leave the vulgar planet alone to the standard 9 that we all know are planets.
  - odyssey7 26d ago
    This is what should have happened. (And it’s not too late — Pluto will remain with us for a while yet.)
  - ummonk 26d ago
    No that would be an argument to return to the original definition of planets (highly visible celestial objects that migrate across the sky, i.e. the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). If you believe in the "standard 9" you're just insisting on returning to a scientific definition of planets but one that is frozen on our scientific understanding from a few decades ago...
    - odyssey7 26d ago
      As you can see, there are many valid ways to go about understanding what a planet is in a cultural sense.
    - zdragnar 25d ago
      The argument is to not make any changes to what people call planets but to instead have taken the opportunity in 2006 to create a separate classification system. Use something vaguely Latin sounding like planitus or whatever.
      - ummonk 24d ago
        Yes, but again, what people call planets was stable for over a thousand years before changing rapidly in the past few centuries (first with the Sun and Moon being removed during the Copernican revolution, then Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta being added before being removed when they discovered a bunch of other asteroids, then Neptune being added, and finally in the last century Pluto being added before being removed after they discovered a bunch of other dwarf planets). If you don't like changes to what people call planets, you should be unrolling all the other changes that have also been made, and go back to the original definition that stood from ~200 BCE-1700 CE.

jerf 26d ago

"Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words." If they could do it all over again probably most of them would. The sciences all grew organically too. Some of these things like "berries" aren't even just the product of one reclassification, they're the product of several over the course of decades or centuries, which is how they get so common-sense silly over time.

zdragnar 25d ago
We had the perfect opportunity to introduce new names when the IAU created the "dwarf planet" classification in 2006. That was literally the perfect time to do it all over.
- odyssey7 25d ago
  Although there may have been a chance from an opportunism standpoint, the wisdom needed to do that well was clearly absent.

Gooblebrai 26d ago

> Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words. Doesn't really matter. The public would end up taking science words for their own purposes to sound legitimate. Look at how "quantum" and "energy" is used in alternative medicine.

lokar 26d ago
They really are the “epicenter” of the problem