3 ms·
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-
by odyssey7 1mo 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 1mo agoThe 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 1mo agoPlanets 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 1mo agoFew 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 1mo agoHey, 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 1mo agoThere 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 1mo agoEven 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 1mo agoThis 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 1mo 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.
- odyssey7 1mo agoIt’s not about being rude to Pluto so much as about being rude to me. I’m not a member of the IAU. I don’t adhere to their linguistic prescriptivism, and nobody should expect that I will. Some of their own members do not — the article here explains. Are you a member of the IAU?
- Dylan16807 1mo agoI didn't say anything about rudeness to Pluto, I was talking about Ceres. I like Ceres. I think it deserves some recognition for being known before even Neptune.
- odyssey7 1mo agoBy all means, call it what you like and honor it however you like. I’m not the IAU, and I have no interest whatsoever in emboldening thousands of people to smugly harass you or anybody else about it.
- zdragnar 1mo agoNo, 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 1mo agoThis is what should have happened. (And it’s not too late — Pluto will remain with us for a while yet.)
- ummonk 1mo agoNo 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 1mo agoAs you can see, there are many valid ways to go about understanding what a planet is in a cultural sense.
- zdragnar 1mo agoThe 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 1mo agoYes, 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.