Pluto and the IAU - What do you think?

[Chrissyo]

Hi everyone. (To mods, is this in the right section? Move if desired:) ).

During my usual scoot through the Internet, I have run into quite a lot of people who are against the IAU's decision to change Pluto's status. I just spent a bit of time on YouTube watching a few of the videos there. Now I'm completely in favour of the IAU's decision, and I believe it was a practical and sensible move. However, it seems that the majority of the public would disagree with me. So I got to thinking that it might be fun to create my own YouTube (or similar) video discussing my view on the matter. Hopefully I'll get myself thinking, learn some new stuff and maybe get others thinking/learning as well.

Anyway, I thought I would start by having a look at what people think. What does the IceInSpace community think of the IAU's decision? More specifically, do you agree with the IAU's decision on removing Pluto and what are your reasons?

The IAU's resolution for planetary status can be found here: http://www.iau.org/Resolutions_5-6.398.0.html.

I will add polling options to this thread (if I can work out how:P ) and follow the progress of this thread. There's nothing quite like a good discussion:D

[Astroman]

I am 100% with the IAU's decision. Reason being I have never thought of Pluto as the 9th planet and never will. It's inclination to the "orbital plane" is more like an Astreroids than a planets. Although there are quite a few Asteroids that do have a similar inclination to that of the other planets, I believe these to be unformed planets (unable to clump together gravitationally) or a planet who met its end in a catastrophic event. Hard to say without historical evidence from them.

I can see this thread stirring up some pretty interesting debate, but we must remember that it is of the opinion of the poster for their decision and isn't meant to be a sling match between who thinks they are right or wrong.

[[1ponders]]

I agree that scientifically it should not be a planet, though I do see cause to give it a special designation as a planet for purely historical reasons.

[rogerg]

I voted No because...

While it may end up being a correct vote, I don't believe we have a large enough sample space of known planets, let alone the ones between the sizes of Earth & Pluto to accurately decide what we should deem a planet.

In the mean time, we may as well leave Pluto as a planet for historical reasons and not being sure of a better alternative.

[iceman]

I agree with Paul, never considered it a planet but think that it probably should remain named one for posterity.

[AJames]

This is my view...

The initial discovery of Eris was from very start embroiled in much controversy, mainly because it was soon realised that this latest trans-Neptunian body seemed even larger than Pluto’s diameter. Some astronomers immediately and boldly considered and declared Eris as the long-antisipated new 10th planet of our Solar System. Yet others seem to have some real doubts about this proposal.

For a short while, most remained unsure about the real planetary nature of Eris, mainly because of its considerable faintness and its very slow movement against the background stars. At first Eris was to be considered the 10th planet of our solar system, but probably with some justification, this was soon was diminished, by the new definition of dwarf planet or Scattered Disk Object (SDO).

The unfortunate problem with the newly discovered Eris was that it immediately got caught in a real pre-existing debate on what the actual definitions of what either the term planets or asteroids meant. This particular question had slowly been simmering for the previous decade or so, with many putting their case on either side of the argument. The debate when up a notch or two after about 1993, when significant new discoveries were made of several small to medium-sized planetary bodies found beyond the orbit of Neptune. Some did suggest this region was an unknown second asteroid belt - within the area of the solar system known as the Kuiper Belt. As others soon quickly suspected, Pluto and 2003 UB313 might just the largest examples of a region of hundreds, if not thousands of similar sized bodies. If this were true, then Pluto’s punitive size would made it necessary to denounce its planetary status.



A sometimes torrid and passionate debate ensued for several more years among the planetary astronomers, which wasn’t resolved until the late-August 2006 at the 26th (XXVII) I.A.U. General Assembly Meeting in Prague. On the very last day of this conference it was surprisingly decided, amid much dissension and complaint, to downgraded Eris, Pluto and the minor planet Ceres into a new class of bodies known as dwarf planets. This decision effectively make Eris to be among the numbered planetary bodies. Ie. (136199) Eris, joined by both (134340) Pluto and Ceres.

It was also announced that other dwarf planets will likely be added to this list, especially after the newly discovered trans-Neptunian bodies are discovered.

If Pluto was to be considered a real planet, then surely the new body 2003 UB 313 was also large enough to be classed as a small planet?

Clearly it is not. This is really a necessary evil to divide the asteroids from the planets - and eliminate those that happen to "falling between the cracks." So from 24th August 2006, the official number of planets - Mercury to Neptune - is now reduced to only eight planets - removing Pluto after 76 years as a unique planetary body. It won't be changed again - unless of course another solar system body is found larger than, say, Mercury.

Seven planets anyone?

[Dujon]

It is quite evident that our forefathers thought with wise and meaningful forethought and got it wrong. The solar system should, surely, begin and end with 'S, U and N'.

Pluto for all those years has been a pimple on the face of our planetary system. Now it has been lanced and reduced to the dwarf that it really is. Perhaps, if we massage it with sun cream for long enough, it will just disappear and we can settle down to ignoring everything else that might intrude upon our understanding of our local environment.

[ving]

we just do not know enough about our own system and other systems to be able to properly say yes it is or no it isnt. it was called a planet and so it should remain till we can more properly discover what else there is out there to compare it to.
thousands or even millions of textbooks are now wrong and the IAU could be found to be wrong due to thier lack of knowledge.
is a ball of gas really a planet?

[higginsdj]

Given that we have discovered more than 350,000 objects in our solar system I say that we do know enough (at this stage) about the objects in our solar system to catagorise the objects for scientific purposes.

My guess is that once we (human kind) study it up close and personal, we are likely to recatagorise it again but as something new!

Cheers

[higginsdj]

I think thats the point of the re-catagorisaton..... We already have:

Terrestial Planets
Gas Giant Planets
Ice Giant Planets
Dwarf Planets
and the Old Minor Planets

Cheers

[ving]

350,000... how many objects are there and what do we really know about them.
tis just the human ego that is stopping us from saying "we really just dont know!". we as a race are far too pround of the infantisimally small amount we know... or think we know about the universe around us.

[higginsdj]

Well for starters we know at least a rough orbit and size. For many we know their actual orbit, surface Taxonomy, actual size, albedo, rotation rate, shape and other characteristics such as moons etc. I guess it depends on what you think we need to know :-)

[cahullian]

I voted yes because I don't like to rock the boat.

Gazz

[duncan]

Hi all,
I voted no because it's been a part of what we termed our solar system for so long. It also has a proper orbit and moons of its own. I guess it comes down to a personal view,having said that where or when does it end?
Cheers:whistle:

[shredder]

Hi All,

I voted with the no camp. Mostly for historical reasons, it was named as a planet, and accepted as a planet for many years. Now it gets demoted because someone picks up a blip much further out and says "what about me". We can hardly resolve Pluto, how much faith do we realy have in resolving the more distant bodies, and what are we going to do if we find oops they were more reflective and just looked bigger (or similar) ....

I mean what exactly is a dwarf planet... its just a crappy compromise... what will they do if they find a realy large body out there, call it an "outer planet" or a "slow planet" (due to the rotation period) or similar...

But that said I wont loose any sleep over it either way.

[ving]

rough being the operative word me thinks... so much of what we know falls under this word. :)

[Dr Nick]

Simply, I think that if scientists had known what they were doing in the time of it's discovery, it would not have been a planet in the first place, but, since it was a planet for so long, I think many (non-astronomical) people are still going to consider it a planet.

[higginsdj]

'Rough' is a relative term. You'll need to look at the uncertainty parameter on each target. U is based on 'runoff' per decade from the predicted position. All numbered objects have a U <= 2. The following table from the MPC is in ArcSeconds per decade.

U - RUNOFF "

0 < 1.0
1 < 4.4
2 < 19.6
3 < 86.5
4 < 382
5 < 1692
6 < 7488
7 < 33121
8 < 146502
9 > 146502

There are some 'Lost' targets and many that are so new they are in need of follow-up to improve their orbits but on the whole you'll find U values are pretty low. MPC talks in terms of RMS for each position of under 1" being precise!

Cheers

[ving]

eh?
i'll take your word for it... as the general public do when experts talk. right or wrong we take thier word for it. ;)

[leon]

I don't agree with the decision.

Anyway how come this small group of people can just say, oh, I think we'll change that, or na, we don't like that idea, this would be better, It's a bit like, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :shrug:

Now that's scientific, isn't it....:whistle:

Leon :thumbsup:

[shredder]

Yeah, would have to agree with Leon....

Nobody asked me for my oppinion before downgrading it....

Now if an equal number of impressive scientists (or not so impressive as the case may be) go out and call it a Planet... where will that leave us. Say it wont happen???... well look at smoking, or the environment.....

But I still sit with Leon, they should have asked me first before making such a large decision.....

Or come up with a much better reason and explination for it.

[RB]

I was disappointed about the decision, I've always considered Pluto a planet.

[higginsdj]

Well an equally important consideration.... Why should they ask you?

We are talking about a scientific reclassification of an object. Pluto is still Pluto. It still orbits the sun, has it's own moons, has an atmosphere, it's position in space has not been changed........ Did the fact that Pluto was classified as a planet make it any more or less important to people?

Cheers

[Rob_K]

Good bit of commonsense there David. As far as widespread consultation/voting goes, it's not Big Brother! :P Pluto, it's time to leave the house....

Pluto has always been the odd one out, for a number of important reasons (one also being it is too dim & distant for my little telescope;) ). When scientific reclassification occurs, as it does regularly in all branches of science, the process is dictated by those with the necessary expertise, not the general population. Still, there's no reason we shouldn't miss the little fella in our planetary family, and I understand why half our voters have gone NO.

Cheers -

[OneOfOne]

I agree with the decision for a number of reasons:

1. If it was discovered now, it would not be called a planet.

2. The inclination of its orbit makes it appear different to all the other "planets".

3. Its orbit comes inside another orbit, also making it an odd man out.

4. If it was kept a planet, then we would have the potential in the future of being stuck with dozens of similar "planets".

The decision needs to be made by those with the knowledge to make an unemotional decision, if we were to leave decisions like this to the general public, would be still consider the world to be made up of combinations of the "four elements"? I am sure people missed the comfort they felt knowing that everthing could be described in such terms (in fact I am sure there are borderline fringe elements who still consider this to be "science"). What if we still had to consider the Earth to be flat just to keep the public happy? Mind you there are still plenty flat earthers out there!

It just happens to be the "first" of a myriad of such objects that was discovered, in a time before we had the knowledge to realise what we had truly discovered. I am sure the subject will need to be revisited when we have more examples of planetary systems, around other stars, with even weirder characteristics...maybe Jupiter will need to be reclassified as a mid sized gas planet rather than a "gas giant". Earth may need to be classified as a "marginal life supporting planet" if we discover other "earths" that have many forms of life based on different chemistry rather than our single GATC based DNA...

That's what sets science apart from its pseudo counterparts...they are stuck in a time warp while science marches on!

[Geoff45]

What we call something is not important. It is just a convenience. Whether we call Pluto a planet or a blyxl doesn't alter what we know about it or what we may discover about it in the future. Anyway, I suspect that in fifty years or so, nobody will be fazed by the fact that Pluto isn't a planet. After all, in the 19th century Ceres, Vesta, Juno and Pallas were all classified as planets and now nobody cares about them not being called planets :( . In fact, their story is much the same as Pluto--once we realised that they were just the biggest things in a whole bunch of trash, we stopped calling them planets.
Geoff

[shredder]

I think you guys missed my point, almost completely.

Pluto was named as a planet, by the scientific community, and then given to the world to add to the list of known planets, for all to know an use etc etc. It is written into every text book and science class. And it probably would have remained that way.... and so it came into popular and consistent use.

Now a few bodies further out were discovered that also looked remarkably like planets, did the scientific community name them as planets? Did they discount them as planets? No they decided to opt out of that debate almost entirely and instead change what was then an accepted (if somewhat incorrect) assignment of Pluto. And even then they didnt seem to manage to get a sound definition.

So while I dont care if its Pluto, Planet X or Dwarf Planet ABC.... I think there should be some consistency here, once they scientific community decides to put it out as a planet for all to use there should be more of a debate than what occured. Its not like they are changing the name / status of some obscure bit of research that know one knows about. Just imagine if the science community now said "well we dont like the name of Water, from now on it should be called Di-Hydrogen Oxide" quite correct, quite scientific, and quite unnecessary and stupid. So where is the difference here. Why should all school texts be rewritten just to call it a Dwarf Planet (for example)?

Also they are changing the status of 1 of 9 planets based on a sample size of 11 objects. So think about the statistics there, after sampling something 10 times would you go and discount 1 simply because it doesnt seem to quite fit the other 9? I think they were a bit too hasty to change this, especially with all flow on effects it will have, simply to avoid naming the other discoveries planets... an equally valid rule could have been "anything outside the orbit of Pluto is not a planet"... dumb but just as valid... with a sample set of 9 how do we know that it isnt right?

So considering the rushed decision to change the name of an accepted widely used term, for what are dubious reasons, well yes I think that consoltation and a better explination is warranted.

[do3_37mro]

Folks in this thread might like to take the opportunity to ask Professor Alex Filippenko about the Pluto Demotion directly when he appears LIVE next week on the AAIRC Service as he is an executive member if the IAU :)
Bert

[higginsdj]

How do you defined rushed? They (the scientific community) have been debating this for more than a decade! (well in reality they have been debating it ever since the named it)

What makes the reasons dubious?

Cheers

[shredder]

I think you are just backing up my point David.

They have been debating if Pluto is a planet or not since its discovery, but saw fit to name it a planet while this debate continued.

Now they take a vote and its out, one vote, and overturn years of history and presumable legitimate argument.

The question is why now. What makes it less of a planet now than say 10 years ago? Its not like our images of Pluto are that great, or have improved even, Nasa's best images arent much more than a few fuzzy blobs, so where is this conclusive evidence that Pluto is no longer a planet? Did we all of a sudden discover a whole bunch of planetary systems identical to ours without Pluto or some such? On the contrary all evidence is pointing to the opposite, planets come in all sizes and orbits.

What it appears to me is that the scientific community was being pressured by those who discovered the outer "dwarf planets" to name them as planets as they were bigger than Pluto and had a Sun centric orbit. Essentially if Pluto is a planet then why arent these??? They were faced with a possibility of having a whole bunch of planets. So they made a rushed decision to stop the pressure and pre-empt someone managing to get one of those outer objects accepted as a planet. Hence I think it was a rushed descision.

As for being dubious, they didnt measure those outer objects on their own merrit, they decided simply not to have any more planets and so relegate everything else to a dwarf planet. Changed the rules to suit them selves. Its not like they even came up with a good explination or rule. So explain how that is scientific? Explain why everyone now needs to change their thinking because a group of scientists dont know what to do with a number of outer objects, and cant decide how to classify them properly.

Seems a rushed and dubious decision to me.

[higginsdj]

Well they took one vote and it was in - why complain when they took one vote to take it out?

One reason for doing it now is the large number of discoveries of objects so similar to Pluto. More than 800 discovered since Dave Jewett and Jane Luu discovered the first (well, the second now - Pluto being the first) 1992 QB1.

I agree it was likely pressure applied by JPL/NASA scientists to have their new discoveries classified as planets (would have done wonders for their budgets and public image) but it is more likely that it was a catalyst to force an outcome on an argument that had been going on for 70 years. It would have been just as easy to add the new objects to planetary status as to remove them so one can't actually blame the discovery of such objects on pulling Pluto's status!

I have to disagree with your last point. Prior to this 'ruling' what was the definition of a planet? For the very first time they actually made an attempt to provide some 'rules' for catagorising what a planet is, as well as those other objects in the solar system. As things stood, anything that orbited the sun could be called a planet. If fact everything except comets were called planets (asteroids were called Minor Planets!)

Cheers

David

[[1ponders]]

While it upsets a lot of people, the scientific community in general are continually changing designations of things as more information becomes available. Take plants for instance. I work in the horticultural industry as a tutor and teacher and it is a nightmare trying to keep up with plant name changes at times. The reasons for changing their names are valid I suppose, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

btw in 1995 (I think) there were 85 botanical name changes to plants. On the Sunshine Coast ALONE!!!! Try explaining that one to students who one year learn a plant by one name, only to find out the next year they have to learn a totally different name.

[shredder]

Just because they rushed to make it a planet, is that any kind of justification for rushing to take it out? I also think the two circumstances were very different. When Pluto was discovered they were looking for a planet, all scientific evidence pointed to a planet, and so when something was found that resembled a planet it was named as such. No issue there. The circumstances for taking it out however were somewhat different.

I am not so sure that the number of discoveries was the issue (800, or 8,000 is a bit neither here not there) but the apparent size of the objects. With a few being bigger than Pluto and having better orbits they would have been under enormous pressure to name them as planets. The simple and obvious answer would be to address the issue of these outer objects, claim that not enough was known to justify calling them planets and leave it for 10 years and see.

As for the ruling, and the prior definition of a planet. I am not sure you would find too many non astronomical people calling an asteroid a minor planet. And this is where I have the biggest problem. They arent changing a purely scientific term or scientific definition, something that no one cares about outside the scientific community. The definition of a planet is not just a scientific issue. They are chaning part of every day speach, language and culture.

Anyway the ruling is made, and the decision is done, but most polls seem to indicate as this one does that most people are split over the issue. Wider consoltation, agreement, and a better definition would have possibly prevented this.

[DobDobDob]

I have abstained from voting on the basis that I think the question (that the Poll is based on) is erroneous and misrepresents the truth. IMHO Pluto has not been demoted, it has simply been reclassified.

The meanings of these two words are very different. Demoted means to assign to a lower position or reduce in rank, whereas reclassify means to rearrange or order by classes or category.

There has been no dishonour or disgrace perpetrated on Pluto, it has just been placed in a category along with other like objects. It is where it belongs, and should it need to be reclassified again in the future so be it, this is responsible science by our scientists.

[higginsdj]

And herein lies the apparent heart of the issue - Astronomers wanting to give an astronomical definition for an astronomical object. The public seems to have a concern only about the fact that Pluto is reclassified as a Dwarf Planet but not caring a hoot that the majority of the other 300,000 + Minor Planets are now officially called 'Small Solar System Bodies'. Should we call it - selective caring?

So it might appear that astronomers need to seek approval for reclassifying some things - just the ones the public care about! ;)

Cheers

[Robster]

I tend to agree with the decision for the reasons cited above, and I don't hear Pluto complaining about going from being the runt of the litter to being the head dog of the newly designated pack of "Dwarf Planets". Crikey - Pluto, Dwarves - am I in Disneyland or something? Maybe they could name a newly discovered KBO "Mickey" to keep "Pluto" company... Gotta keep some humour here.

Robster

[Chrissyo]

Yeah, I very purposefully wrote the description of the poll like that, and I made sure to put ''' marks around the word demoted. I did it this way because at that point, everyone who was against it kept using that word, and so by putting it in the '''s I hoped to satisfy both the demoted view and the reclassified view (it might not have worked too well:P ). I am in agreeal with you that Pluto hasn't been dishonoured or disgraced (I think the IAU made a good decision with it, and a rose by any other name...).

[DobDobDob]

I see the quotes now, thanks for pointing that out, two very small marks but they can make a great deal of 'difference'. I actually use the little buggers a fair amount myself, sometimes I even underline but when I really want to draw attention to something I use italics and sometime go BOLD and uppercase. I hope I did offend you with my remarks :doh:

[circumpolar]

Astronomy Cast.

http://www.astronomycast.com/page/7/


This is a really good series of Podcasts. Scroll down to the bottom of the page a listen to the one on Pluto. You don't need an mp3 player to listen. Windows Media Player is all you need.

Just click on
'Download Episode 1 - Pluto's Planetary Identity Crisis (12.6MB)'

enjoy.

[Kal]

I voted yes - pluto should have been demoted.

Astronomy must be a flexible science such that as we discover more we cannot hold onto the old simply for posterity.

[Rob_K]

Maybe the IAU should have kept Pluto and ditched Uranus. Already voted "The Solar System's Most Embarrassing Planet" every year since it was ill-advisedly re-named by Johann Elert Bode (from Herschel's perfectly acceptable "the Georgium Sidus", or the Georgian Planet), this would put an end to the schoolboy sniggers, tongue-tripping, mispronunciations and red faces once and for all. :P :P :P


PS - I voted YES anyway.............

Cheers -

[Ingo]

I think there's too much fuss about it. You can still call it a planet and see it is in your own mind no matter if it is "officially" demoted or not. It's not like the secret police are going to come in and blow your house to schmitherines if you call it a planet or not.

It's only like 250 miles across isn't it? There are other objects that big or even bigger in the solar system, why aren't they called planets too?

But then, it orbits the sun just like any other planet...

[Pascha]

Heja chrissyo.
it's a question of precise defintion, isn't it?
Well, the definition proposed by the IAU is limited and may be changed sometimes. We'll see. So long Pluto is not a planet.
Allzeit kleren Himmel Pascha

[astroron]

A story in The Australian Newspaper Education Supplement today.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21737537-12332,00.html

[higginsdj]

Taking the issues that this scientist had to the nth degree and we can use the same response to state Earth isn't a planet (our orbit isn't clear).

Can he definitively say that Jupiter, Neptune and earth have not cleared their orbits? Are the Trojans left overs from the planet formation days or are they captured objects.

There are definitions and there are practical definitions.....

Cheers

[Gargoyle_Steve]

Does it matter?? Does Pluto's status depend on whether it was a captured object, or a leftover from formation of other planets?

The IAU certainly didn't think so because their definition of a planet does NOT include any mention as to How or Where objects come from, only whether or not an "orbit has been cleared".

As you said yourself David you could take these issues to the nth degree and exclude earth from planetary status - and isn't that the very problem here in that the IAU definition is so poorly worded that as a scientific definition it is ambiguous and near meaningless. Science should be exact & precise - the IAU's definition contains nothing of either of these qualities and I think this is why so many people do not respect this decision.

Throw any half decent lawyer at that definition in a courtroom and it would be thrown out in 10 minutes, including 3 minutes for the intro and 5 for the summation.
:rofl:

[higginsdj]

My interpretation of clearing was that the orbit was cleared as part of the planet formation phase rather than capturing objects after the fact.

It's status as a captured object or not is relevent else we could be calling many of the moons planets!

I do not disagree that the definition is flawed and needs to be cleaned up - but it is a start. Simply put, in my view, Pluto has more in common with Asteroids and Comets than it does with the 'traditional' planets - I would have been happy with 'Minor Planet' rather than 'Dwarf' and then we wouldn't have to refer to everything else as 'Small solar system bodies'!

Cheers

[Geoff45]

Long ago there were 7 planets: the sun , the moon, mecury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn.
Then came Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo. Now there were 6: mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter, saturn.
Lo Herschel: Add uranus to make it 7.
Soon after there were 11: Add Ceres, Juno, Vesta, Pallas.
The acceptance of the first four asteroids was so matter-of-fact that introductory texts such as First Steps to Astronomy and Geography (1828) (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/AsteroidHistory/minorplanets.html#FirstSteps) lists the planets as, "Eleven: Mercury, Venus, the Earth, Mars, Vesta, Juno, Ceres, Pallas, Jupiter, Saturn, and Herschel." Herschel was an alternate name for Uranus (after its discoverer) used in Britain until the 1850's.
Discovery of Astraea 1845: 12 planets
Add Neptune 1846: 13 planets
Demotion of asteroids (see http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/AsteroidHistory/minorplanets.html): 8 planets
Discover Pluto: 9 planets
Demote Pluto: Back to 8

[wavelandscott]

While I voted no as I do not agree with the decision...it is probably technically correct.

In spite of the decision being "technically correct", I still think it should be listed as a "real" planet and will think of it as such...until they pry my telescope from my cold dead hands (or something to that effect)...

[Gargoyle_Steve]

I think you've hit the nail on the head twice there Scott!

Pluto's size, composition and position possibly should exclude it from being called a planet by comparison with all the others, but the very sloppy and ambiguous definition used to accomplish this will always carry the taint of "bad politics" to me, not the clean scent of Good Science.
:shrug:

Like you Scott in my home we still talk about 9 planets, and when my son starts asking about this stuff I explain that we used to have 9 planets. I saw a poster for school kids in a local bookshop a few weeks ago showing our solar system with reasonably good (though not quite to scale) images of all the planets, ie 9 of them.

I bought it immediately!

The best thing was that it was half price, I assume for being "out of date".
;)

[ispom]

I have voted "no"
because I think:
for historical and educational reasons Pluto should persist a planet

[dthstr99]

Good question chrissyo!
On my journey's around the globe, many person has asked that same question to me. I voted yes (and tell my people yes) because
it simply doesnt fit in with the other planets!

Peace.


-Smack that!

[edwardsdj]

The thing I love about this decision is that it means I've seen all of the planets without having to go to the effort of tracking down Pluto :)

[mlcolbert]

For me, as I have told my students... read the BBC website and see what actually happened. The session which decided this was held on a Friday...after 9400 of the delegates left for home, of the 600 remaining 400 voted for the demotion of Pluto as a planet. This is politics, pure and simple. Not science. I reject it as such. I understand that the IAU will in the next session around 2009 make a final decision. Whatever it may be, it is my opinion that the entire affair has damaged science in the sense of objectivity etc.

When idiots have to resort to underhanded political machinations rather than reliance on 'facts' then I no longer care. What I observe and take photographs of is then my business and I no longer care or pay attention to the so-called professionals. Bottom line: I no longer respect them or their taxonomical judgements. Their credibility has been irretrievably damaged.

Read Latour, Science in Action.


michael

[AJames]

Michael

While I respect your point of view, this seems to me that your reasoning is completely wrong. Politics has nothing to do with it. The choice of Pluto as a planet or not was discussed in detail by the IAU and the Commission for Nomenclature for many years before the decision on 13th December 2006.
The problem was the discovery of the Eris and other bodies beyond the Pluto's orbit, which challenged the view of whether these were planets or part of another class of object. The IAU were really caught between a rock and a hard place, and decided that planets, once defined as just large spheroidal bodies, was inadequate. In fact, no one actually said that Pluto wasn't a planet, because it was based on the adoption of the IAU Resolutions 5A and 6 (2006) (You can read these at; http://homepage.mac.com/andjames/PageDPlanets000.htm )
If we were to put Pluto as a planet again, it would make Eris - which is now know as bigger then Pluto - a planet as well.

I humbly do completely respect the IAU decision, because is solved the problem.

However, I agree these rules are not absolute. Like most categories of astronomical classes of objects, they are all subject to change due to increased knowledge or discovery or understanding.
My view is the IAU is at least democratic - something they pride themselves on - and to suggest they are autocratic smacks of pure desperation - seemingly because, for what ever the reason, you don't agree.

In the end, whether Pluto is a planet or not doesn't change that it is an object in the Solar System.

Perhaps instead of griping about the problems regarding education of children, you should use the opportunity to explain the dilemma and why - learning more about the complexities of Solar System

Instead, as I read here, you are turning them all into something more akin to revolutionaries. Ie. Challenging every decision ever created by legitimate authorities. :mad2: Where's the respect here?
IMO since the beginnings of the formation of the IAU in the 1920's, they have restored order in the universe for the unmitigated chaos of the nomenclature. Next will we be disagreeing whether some constellation or other should be removed or added from the pantheon of the 88 that are recognised today.
Sorry. I support the full independence of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), 100%. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to extreme zealotry.

Andrew

[AJames]

Yes, the BBC here is really great source of truth and scientific knowledge... Get real. The BBC is just another media organisation, and like most media organisations, have this bizarre inclination of not only reporting the news - but generating division to perpetuate urban myths to keep the story simmering.
The BBC Website is about as trustworthy as the Government.
Credibility here is about zero..

[Outbackmanyep]

Look at it this way, if history has taught us anything then the fact that Pluto has been demoted it will go down as a corrective step, i think it would have outraged Clyde Tombaugh if he was alive when this went on!
Astronomy has had many things rewritten, this is just another step forward! If Pluto is a planet then the ones past it are planets......we might have 200 planets in the solar system!!!?? I guess i agree with IAU, it'd be like accepting that the Sun was the centre of our solar system which to others the Earth was...and they can't accept it!

[mlcolbert]

Andrew I think here we will agree to differ.

1. I used the term politics in the non-'governmental' useage as in;
activities concerned with the acquisition or exercise of authority or status; management or control of private affairs or interests within an organisation... etc I see it as a 'political' action in that sense.

2. From what I have read and heard (and I am here quite happy to learn the facts of the matter if I have them incorrect) that the IAU will not be making a final decision on this until next year.

3. Re your follow up comment on the BBC and media in general, I agree with you wholeheartedly! In this instance however, I will give credibility to the journalist who was actually there, or so it was reported. Maybe the figures will be supported in the minutes or the report, and this is what I find to be 'unscientific' in its approach.

4. As for the IAU being democratic, that is exactly the problem, that is a political term. What I expect from them is that if there is a problem of nomenclature then address that also through the education system. Just like the other sciences.

5. And explain the dilemma I did, as well as well as provide an overview on how the sciences function within the world. This is why I suggested reading LaTour as a first step. As this situation can then be used to view many other events and our perceptions / judgements etc of them either from the present or from history.

6. I am neither a member of a Jewish sect nor a fanatical enthusiast. What I do profess to be is someone who prefers to address problems and in recognising them, consider strategies to either resolve them or to minimise confusion etc. From what you suggest, that I should teach students to accept decisions by authority without awareness of potential problems in the model used by said authority. If that is the case, why then is there replication of experiments? Once a finding is published in Nature, Science etc, you suggest that we should accept it. There are far too many examples in the history of science where what has been stated by an organisation was not true. Case in point; the false research results from the Korean Institute in the field of genetics I think it was. Published, but later proven to be false, and later still found to have been the catalyst for a genuine result of a different nature. I am sorry, because I teach my students to think and conduct their own research, not to accept a so-called fact simply because an organisation states that this should be the case. Suggesting that I am creating revolutionaries and crediting me with the generalisation of challenging everything and to add the charge of zealatory and then suggest that we will disagree on something else in future also seems to be rather emotive.

I have addressed your criticisms in, I believe, a rational manner, I do not accept the apparent tone which has been used by you. We should leave the conversation at this point.


michael

[AJames]

Micheal, Points taken.
Just a question that might solve understanding the problem here. Are you aware of the internal structure of the IAU, and the nature of the various Commissions?

Yes, the nomination of resolutions are made at the General Assembly, in which decision are enacted. Before a resolution it is passed, it has been debated by the Commissions responsible, which is comprised of the various specialists in that field.
Each commission has a Committee, with which there are a number of members. In this case 112 members.

For an example of this process, away from the emotive issues of Pluto, is say, Commission 26 is on "Double Stars", whose membership of the Commission is listed Ie. See http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/dsl/Comm26/members_public.html

Commissions are then divided into Divisions, which are grouped together where decisions effect other subject disciplines. For example; Commission 26, is in Division 4 ("Stars"), along with Commissions 29 (Stellar Spectra), 35 (Stellar Constitution), 36 (Theory of Stellar Atmospheres) and 45 (Stellar Classification).

The aim of the Division 4 is;
"The IAU Division IV organizes astronomers studying the characteristics, interior and atmospheric structure, and evolution of stars of all masses, ages, and chemical compositions."
Division 4 is made of about 1000 members.

Many ideas and general decisions are made at Symposia or dedicated meetings for to make changes to how terminology or nomenclature are to be adopted. For example, Commission 26 has been working on a new structural system of describing multiple stars (the Washington Multiplicity Catalog (WMC) system), which has been progressing for almost a decade.
The discussion that began this work - by the so-called Working Group - was the IAU Symposium 200 at Potsdam "Lunch Discussion" on 12 April 2000 "New IAU Concepts of Binary/Multiple Star Designation"
An example of this is at Newsletter is Commission 4 ; Ephemerides
http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/newsltr12.html

An example of the Division Report, can be downloaded as a pdf document
http://www.astro.lu.se/~dainis/DivIV/Div_IV_Prague_report.pdf

Once this work has been done, it is present to the International General Assembly, and formalised and ratified.

Similarly this was done by another Division for Pluto Debate and the new Planet Definitions.

For this reason, your statement below seems inadequately judged. Such views have been also stated elsewhere, probably originating from US teacher, Eric Chaisson in late 2006. This was then and promoted by the media, like the New York Times, the LA Times and the American broadcaster, NBC. (then the general public), which was based on the assumption that "scientists decide facts by voting - the source of democracy NOT science view. You own statement appears in a similar vein;



You also in your reply in stating...



Are you aware that the "Education System" is highly important to the IAU and the educational needs of astronomy of the world, which is under Commission 46 - Astronomy, Education and Development. http://iau46.obspm.fr/ . This is under Division XII.

I suggest you read the Resolutions at;
http://iau46.obspm.fr/spip.php?rubrique10

If you have questions you want to point out, I suggest that you should contact either Commission 46 or Commission 55, which is about Communicating Astronomy to the Public Ie. http://www.communicatingastronomy.org/

This later group is responsible for International Year of Astronomy (IYA 2009)

As to my language or "tone", my reaction was mainly in response to you statement, "When idiots have to resort..." The IAU are, and have, never been anything like this. My own experiences with some of the IAU members is that they take their decisions seriously and impartially. Ie. Dr. Jacqueline Mitton the late 1980's. They are quite aware of their responsibilities, and remain the best among the whole astronomical community. Furthermore, they have nothing to gain by their views.



As far as I know, the matter will be generally reviewed because of the impact of those who so vigourously oppose the decision. From what I see, it is merely trying to keep the peace. I think the definition will not be changed, which has been based on scientific knowledge and application and NOT, as you state, "This is politics, pure and simple. Not science. I reject it as such.". The extension of the definition will be open to change to account for extra=solar planets around other stars.

My reaction in my response to your statement; "entire affair has damaged science" is mischievous at best.

The bottom line is that the scientific definition of a "planet" has been changed - and this was carefully decided for many years before the result was ratified by the General Assembly. This is all I am defending.

In the sake of harmony, perhaps my words here were strong, but they make a point. There are really some individuals who are more than passionate with the "Pluto Debate" who have been totally blinded by the debate rather than the facts - this was my point stating "zealotry" - a word I have used to imply "fanatical enthusiast." I took quite sometime being very careful in my reply, but if I you have interpreted this as personal attack - then this never was my intent.

As Gibor Basri says from the University of California, Berkley says.

"A substantial number of astronomers are rejecting the IAU action, so if I were a teacher or textbook writer, I wouldn't presume that we have heard the final word. Rather, teaching about the controversy itself allows a lot of fun science to be introduced, along with the idea that science is not "given truth," but is worked out by people who make observations and theories but keep their human foibles as well. It is good to also keep in mind throughout the discussion that nature does not care what labels we use."

Andrew

NOTE: You also might like to read;
Astronomy Education Review
Student Reactions
http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=215

Educational Implications on What is a Planet
http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=207
(Excellent because it has a range of views)

There are many interesting articles in these publications for teachers, much of which is very practical.
Hope this helps!!

[AJames]

Michael,

I have just obtained a borrowed copy of the Bruno Latour's book "Science in Action" you have referred here. At a casual glance, it seems to be almost a gross, even twisted or distortion view of science, that goes out of its way to show how science has been highjacked by some conspiracy of bureaucrats and groups of scientists to non-ethical ends.
I will be reading this in detail in the next day or two, but I feel I can already say it has nothing really to do with the current planetary status of Pluto. The IAU, as you highlight, has made a decision - but I fail to see how else this could be done differently. Scientific organisations are basically made to satisfy the memberships knowledge that can inform views - often in a reduced non-mathematical critique - so that our Society can digest and learn from.
Clearly, Bruno Latour is a renown science philosopher, who has been quoted by one of his students has "... produced a highly heterodox* and controversial picture of the sciences", but his views of the sociology in sciences is far removed form your "idiot" comments (in the earlier post) towards the IAU and its delegates in Prague.
Writers like Latour have been considered by the pure scientists as literally activists - especially in the view that the views of scientists (and engineers) were increasingly at loggerheads against the norm of the "public's self-interest". If this was your view as a proponent - which I rightly assumed from your original post. (Hence my statement of the conversion of individuals to become non-scientific "revolutionaries" and "zealotry" - meaning her "fanatical enthusiast.") While you are obviously, (from your second post) far from this - there are many who are. Ie. The religious Intelligent Design supporters, etc.
Whilst perhaps the scientific methodology, decision and adaption of "science" ideas to be disseminated and funded might be improved somewhat - or even perhaps presented in a different way - there are few who can disagree with the professional groups of independent peers - an historical method of adjudging credible or non-fraudulent scientific works. Most Scientific Organisations are far more knowledgeable and closer to the real point of study of sometimes esoteric corners of understanding. Most scientists, unlike what is presented on television, are a highly moral lot - especially in astronomy - as their studies have few implications other than understanding the physical relationships of the Universe. It has no real practical technological spin-offs - other than the new technology used to gain useful observations.
Although Latour's view seems both thought provoking and challenging, they are far removed from our little IIS discussion group on the tread discussed here - and a few, probably including myself, might have troubles expressing a solid self-consistent constructive argument. (Even teaching students, other than undergraduates in either 2nd or 3rd year University, who would find Latour's principles on cultural observations of science heavy going.) Furthermore, his arguments appear mainly aimed towards the science biology - whose commercial motives are based on profit through pharmaceutical drugs or genetics (to quote your example) to fix ills and diseases, or even anthropology, political science, etc.
I really fail to see what the so-called "Science and Technology Studies" (STS) has to do really with the science of astronomy - especially regarding risks (other then comets and asteroid impacts of the Earth) or technological innovations in our Society.

For me, Pluto's demotion was actually based on (still incomplete) scientific definitions, which sadly has been grossly distorted and used against the science of astronomy unfairly by the media.

1) Other than holding this stance, would you be able to express more about specifically EXAMPLES of what "underhanded political machinations", as you say, were used by the IAU. (Even though it is incomplete, as you have stated in your post)

2) How has (or does) this continues to truly affect the social fabric of our general non-scientific community? :)

Regards,
Andrew

* Heterodox - [I]adjective : [One] not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs.