|
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
|