|
what's in a name
these sort of debates seem to arise in all branches of science at one point or other. we start with limited knowledge which appears to show big step differences between different "categories" or "types" of objects. as knowledge grows the voids between these types become uncomfortably full and the differences increasingly arbitrary. we could redefine and reclassify, The point is the terminology IS arbitrary in that it is simply imposed by ourselves as observers, the various rocky and gaseous things out there are blissfully unaware of our differentiation of them as planets, asteroids etc. people like to categorise, its in our nature, but if we want that categorisation to be more meaningful (that is useful for predicting how such objects came to be, interact with other objects etc) then the best categorisation is based on "behaviour" e.g. the way objects move and where, their makeup etc (I like the must be round bit as it covers formation), rather than rigid quantifiable criteria such as greater than 3000km diam...
anyway, just some thoughts
|