Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 255 posts

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#101

Post by autoexec »

hn_submit wrote: post #51
Avshalom wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on team Pluto here but no, the problem was that Mike Brown found like a dozen 'planets' and no one wanted to deal with that. It was closer to preventing someone from making a name for themselves.

We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that. Why bother coming up with a pseudo-scientific requirements list for planets when these don't work for a large number of cases.

> We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that.

There is because Pluto is inside the Kuiper Belt and just as much a part of it as all the other "planets" in there. There's nothing wrong with defining our solar system as having 8 planets plus a bunch of other stuff.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#102

Post by Shuddown »

Could someone explain what the IAU means by "clearing its orbit". For example, could we consider the Earth having not "cleared its orbit" because of the Moon? The Sun attracts the Moon more strongly that Earth does, so does that mean that the Earth doesn't fit the criteria? Or does the IAU have some sort exception for moons which they've defined some place else? I'd really appreciate if someone with more knowledge could explain.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#103

Post by autoexec »

odyssey7 wrote: post #99
autoexec wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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"

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#104

Post by Gooblebrai »

zdragnar wrote: post #56
Planktonne wrote: post #30

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.…

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.

> 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.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#105

Post by jscd »

I truly don't get why people have so much reverence for Pluto. And, unlike something like "fruit," which has a botanical and culinary definition which serve different purposes, I really don't get why anyone would care about the non-scientific definition of planet. Maybe I'm just ignorant here: what's the cultural significance of some celestial object being considered a planet?

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#106

Post by concinds »

Planktonne wrote: post #30

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.…

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.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#107

Post by Dylan16807 »

odyssey7 wrote: post #76
bryanlarsen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#108

Post by autoexec »

jerf wrote: post #19

You know, this is really just a fantastic opportunity to realize the phenomenal psychological power of "headcanon". Who cares if Pluto is or is not tagged with the word "planet" by some organization you know effectively nothing about, have no control over, has no control over you, and couldn't so much as move a pebble on the planetary body in question any time in the next 20 years, if not more? Have whatever emotiona…

I agree, call whatever you like whatever you want. Just don't expect schools to teach that to anyone else. We get enough of that from the folks who want to replace science class with "God did it".

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#109

Post by odyssey7 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #88
odyssey7 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN