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

231–240 of 255 posts

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

#231

Post by Timon3 »

odyssey7 wrote: post #221
Timon3 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is emotional reasoning to want Pluto to be an exception to an otherwise universal definition, because the reason for the exception are the emotions of some people . Picking any arbitrary generic definition and applying it universally is less emotional, because there is no emotional reasoning necessary to explain why any object is or isn't a planet.

One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition. Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood? People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t…

> One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition.

This makes no sense to me, can you explain WHY a universal definition is not needed?

> Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood?

I might be missing a more specific critique, but IIUC, this question only makes sense to me if you presuppose that classifications must never be updated. Because otherwise, the solution is that you do the best you can with the data you have, and accept that better data might come along later and prove you missed something? The same way e.g. classifications in biology are frequently updated?

> People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t want to say outright. It’s a sort of appeal to authority rather than a scientific claim. That’s dishonest, and people push back when authorities are dishonest with them.

See, this is where you've totally lost me. I can't tell what people apparently can tell. So what is that specific reason? Do you have to wrap your allegations in so many indirect and allusions? This kind of conspiratorial-cryptic writing genuinely reminds me of flat earthers and qanon followers.

> We don’t make the rules, this is just what a planet is now. Wait, did you say we do make the rules? No, of course we didn’t vote on what our scientific result should be… that would be unscientific. We ARE science.

Did such a vote happen when Pluto got added? I genuinely don't know, but otherwise this objection makes no sense to me.

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

#232

Post by odyssey7 »

Timon3 wrote: post #231
odyssey7 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition. Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood? People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t…

> One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition. This makes no sense to me, can you explain WHY a universal definition is not needed? > Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighbo…

If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one.

It was a fool’s errand or an act of deception to try to coerce “planet” to be a specialized word. The cracks are evident. The 2006 IAU definition doesn’t work.

Specialized words are great. They are important in science. “Planet” is not a specialized word and it has not been a specialized word for hundreds of years. Scientists did not need to somehow coerce “planet” into a specialized term to continue doing science—and if they did, there was still no reason to bother non-specialists about it, since science is its own domain where terms can be used in specialized ways.

Yes, update classifications whenever it’s useful to you. No, don’t expect other people to regard your classification system as the final word. You yourself are planning to change it anyway when it stops being useful to you, and other people have a right to categorize things differently for their own purposes — your system will be neither definitive nor universal, so it shows a lack of self-awareness to say that it is.

You mention that I make cryptic allusions. “See, this is where you've totally lost me. … So what is that specific reason? Do you have to wrap your allegations in so many indirect and allusions?” To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about.

> To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld.

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

#233

Post by Timon3 »

odyssey7 wrote: post #220
Timon3 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

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 pro…

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.

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

#234

Post by Timon3 »

odyssey7 wrote: post #232
Timon3 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition. This makes no sense to me, can you explain WHY a universal definition is not needed? > Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighbo…

If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. It was a fool’s errand or an act of deception to try to coerce “planet” to be a specialized word. The cracks are evident. The 2006 IAU definition doesn’t work. Specialized words are great. They are important in science. “Planet” is not a specializ…

> If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one.

Nope. Just like it is okay for scientists in the field of biology to change the definition of "species" as used in their field, it is okay for the same to happen for the word "planet", even if the general public then argues everyone should use the updated definition in everyday language. That's how language happens and evolves, and that's how we got these words! If this were not the case, Pluto would never have been added as a planet. You were okay with every change until that point - yeah, of course you agree with the changes up to what you were taught, even if there's no argument for what makes them different!

You have to understand: there's no conspiracy behind the IAU that's making people argue against you! It's literally just individual people disagreeing with your disagreement.

---

Regarding your edit:

> To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about.

> > To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld.

In the article, I see literally no reason given by Kornfeld to assume anything but an honest disagreement. Okay, great, they think the definition should fulfill a requirement that the majority apparently doesn't see as necessary. How do they get from this to people inventing a reason to specifically exclude Pluto? There's no reason given to assume bad faith?

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

#235

Post by odyssey7 »

Timon3 wrote: post #234
odyssey7 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. It was a fool’s errand or an act of deception to try to coerce “planet” to be a specialized word. The cracks are evident. The 2006 IAU definition doesn’t work. Specialized words are great. They are important in science. “Planet” is not a specializ…

> If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. Nope. Just like it is okay for scientists in the field of biology to change the definition of "species" as used in their field, it is okay for the same to happen for the word "planet", even if the general public then argues everyone should use t…

Species means different things in different contexts. Have you heard of species counterpoint?

Nobody is saying biologists can’t use that word the way they see fit. It would however be ridiculous for them to ask me to stop referring to species counterpoint.

> as used in their field

Now you’re talking sense. I don’t care what they call Pluto at IAU meetings. You shouldn’t care what I call Pluto in my own home.

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

#236

Post by Timon3 »

odyssey7 wrote: post #235
Timon3 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. Nope. Just like it is okay for scientists in the field of biology to change the definition of "species" as used in their field, it is okay for the same to happen for the word "planet", even if the general public then argues everyone should use t…

Species means different things in different contexts. Have you heard of species counterpoint? Nobody is saying biologists can’t use that word the way they see fit. It would however be ridiculous for them to ask me to stop referring to species counterpoint. > as used in their field Now you’re talking sense. I don’t care what they call Pluto at IAU meetings. You shouldn’t care what I call Pluto in my own home.

Yes, very good, words can mean different things in different contexts!

Now consider: the public still slowly but surely follows along with changes to the classification of species, so when e.g. a species is divided into two or more species, the general population that often encounters them will most likely refer to them separately too given enough time, and the same in the other direction.

It's a simple concept: language changes, and the public likes to follow along with "mainstream" scientific use, even if often lagging behind.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

odyssey7 wrote: post #235
Timon3 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. Nope. Just like it is okay for scientists in the field of biology to change the definition of "species" as used in their field, it is okay for the same to happen for the word "planet", even if the general public then argues everyone should use t…

Species means different things in different contexts. Have you heard of species counterpoint? Nobody is saying biologists can’t use that word the way they see fit. It would however be ridiculous for them to ask me to stop referring to species counterpoint. > as used in their field Now you’re talking sense. I don’t care what they call Pluto at IAU meetings. You shouldn’t care what I call Pluto in my own home.

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by odyssey7 »

Timon3 wrote: post #236
odyssey7 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Species means different things in different contexts. Have you heard of species counterpoint? Nobody is saying biologists can’t use that word the way they see fit. It would however be ridiculous for them to ask me to stop referring to species counterpoint. > as used in their field Now you’re talking sense. I don’t care what they call Pluto at IAU meetings. You shouldn’t care what I call Pluto in my own home.

Yes, very good, words can mean different things in different contexts! Now consider: the public still slowly but surely follows along with changes to the classification of species, so when e.g. a species is divided into two or more species, the general population that often encounters them will most likely refer to them separately too given enough time, and the same in the other direction. It's a simple concept: lang…

I’m the person who has been explaining that the meaning of words comes from how they are used, not from how committees define them. The committees might influence people but ultimately words’ meanings come from how they are used. If you require a scientific expression of this concept, you might find distributional semantics of interest[1]. When people change how they use a word, its meaning changes. Far from having a single, universal meaning, the word “planet” means a number of different things today depending on whom you ask[2].

I have been defending the right for myself and for others to continue using their own language, without harassment from others in the names of scientific bodies. There was a time when linguists would prescribe that words like “y’all” are incorrect to use, and people would be shamed and discriminated against for doing so. Armchair scientists are behind the linguists on this one. We have lost cultural heritage and seen beautiful dialects gradually shrink or disappear due to prescriptive linguistics, and we now understand the harms, and it’s time that it ended.

Yes, people are free to use words in the ways that make sense and come naturally to them. No, it is not appropriate for people to treat others with disrespect for doing so. Harassment is harassment, bullying people into changing how they speak is bullying. This is not a philosophical point, it’s about being a decent person.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributional_semantics

[2] https://xkcd.com/927/

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

#239

Post by antonvs »

autoexec wrote: post #219
antonvs wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is valid - we do need to classify things for our own mental convenience - but I don't think the Pluto case is an example of it. In many ways, the Pluto situation is an example of the Buddhist metaphor about the finger pointing at the moon. The finger is not the moon. Obsessing over the definition of "planet" to that degree doesn't actually achieve anything useful - it's a classic example of confusing label…

> Your point is valid - we do need to classify things for our own mental convenience - but I don't think the Pluto case is an example of it. Obsessing over the definition of "planet" to that degree doesn't actually achieve anything useful There are people who feel that it's worth classifying all the objects in our solar system and that doing so is useful. It's pretty much always been that way. The original definition…

> There are people who feel that it's worth classifying all the objects in our solar system and that doing so is useful.

Up to a point. Part of my point is that the specificity of the new definition of "planet" is a bit silly. It's completely arbitrary. It's certainly not uniquely correct in any sense.

It's also a kind of post-hoc definition which assumes our specific Solar System. For example, let's say you had a rocky body, around the size of Mercury, that had a very eccentric orbit that only reached the Kuiper Belt every few hundred years, at its apoapsis. Would this object "clear its orbit"? Hard to say - the IAU definition isn't precise enough to answer this.

The IAU definition is basically the answer to the question: how do we label the closest eight planets to the Sun as planets without saying that's what we're doing, because we don't want to have to add a whole bunch of KBOs to the list of planets?

None of what the IAU did here constitutes anything resembling real science.

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

#240

Post by Timon3 »

odyssey7 wrote: post #238
Timon3 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, very good, words can mean different things in different contexts! Now consider: the public still slowly but surely follows along with changes to the classification of species, so when e.g. a species is divided into two or more species, the general population that often encounters them will most likely refer to them separately too given enough time, and the same in the other direction. It's a simple concept: lang…

I’m the person who has been explaining that the meaning of words comes from how they are used, not from how committees define them. The committees might influence people but ultimately words’ meanings come from how they are used. If you require a scientific expression of this concept, you might find distributional semantics of interest[1]. When people change how they use a word, its meaning changes. Far from having a…

Again, when you receive multiple comments disagreeing with yours and feel harassed, the likely reason is not a conspiracy to harass you until you change your mind. Of course everyone should be respectful, but as long as they're not deliberately piling on and just respond to your comment at a similar time, you have to respect their right to express disagreement just like you want the right to express yours.
Post reply on HN