tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5216738179263317509.post3835027632250123015..comments2024-01-08T00:25:24.777-08:00Comments on Philosophy of Science Portal: One person's fight for Pluto's statusMercuryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13757909461674304095noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5216738179263317509.post-33006082287958972242009-07-08T14:54:21.639-07:002009-07-08T14:54:21.639-07:00"I respectfully disagree with your proposal t..."I respectfully disagree with your proposal that Pluto remain a planet culturally by the general public while being classified as not a planet by astronomers."<br /><br />That is not exactly what I said. Yes, culturally Pluto could and should remain in public lore. The "not as a planet" is more of a scientific classification whereby Pluto would not, rightly so, be classified as a planet under a new scientific definition of classification.<br /><br />I cannot understand why you cannot adopt this analysis. But the whole-hearted stance on bringing Pluto back into the fold and at the same time regulate the classification just may not work. As in all of physics and realms of science "definition" is a key and important word and such discussions as we are having are relevant and vital to the whole science process.Mercuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13757909461674304095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5216738179263317509.post-23552559028805284152009-07-08T10:34:56.593-07:002009-07-08T10:34:56.593-07:00Wow, what a surprise to find this and know someone...Wow, what a surprise to find this and know someone serious about science is actually reading my blog!<br /><br />Here is my response to your suggestion. I will happily print it in a future blog entry.<br /><br />I respectfully disagree with your proposal that Pluto remain a planet culturally by the general public while being classified as not a planet by astronomers. Since I genuinely believe that being in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium (and orbiting a star) makes an object a planet, I cannot support astronomers using a definition that arbitrarily excludes objects that meet this criterion. To me, this is simply factually wrong. I will refer to the article by Dr. Alan Stern and Dr. Hal Levison here: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/planet_def.html . This article distinguished between what the authors termed "uber planets," which are in hydrostatic equilibrium and gravitationally dominate their orbits, and "unter planets," which are in hydrostatic equilibrium and do not gravitationally dominate their orbits. However, Stern and Levison NEVER say that "unter planets" should not be considered planets at all.<br /><br />The issue is not whether I can support science using a different definition than culture. I could do so if the definition used by science could be justified and made sense. The IAU decision does neither. The concept that a planet must clear or even dominate its orbit was artificially concocted by one particular group of astronomers, the dynamicists, who specifically wanted to limit the number of planets in our solar system.<br /><br />In short, I believe that not considering the smaller, non-gravitationally dominant "unter planets" as not planets is scientifically wrong.<br /><br />In the pain reliever analogy, acetylsalicylic acid is simply a formal name for aspirin. Both terms mean the same thing; one is simply a more complex description. That is not the same as saying the same object and having the public call it a planet while scientists directly contradict that statement by calling it not a planet. That is not to mention the tremendous confusion it would lead to in schools and textbooks. Which view is taught? That view essentially becomes THE view unless one teaches the controversy, as Stern advocates.<br /><br />I will go back to my original question. What is the problem with classifying dwarf planets as a subclass of planets. They are planets because they are in hydrostatic equilibrium, and they are of the dwarf subcategory because they do not gravitationally dominate their orbits. This is a simple and easy soluation.Laurel Kornfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02387883186244337619noreply@blogger.com