[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/Comm...rs_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...gue_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;

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.

You also in your reply in stating...

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.

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.

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.

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!!