Pluto and the IAU - What do you think?

[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.


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 (Ron)]

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

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by astroron

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

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 (Steve)]

Are the Trojans left overs from the planet formation days or are they captured objects.

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.

[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 (Geoff)]

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) 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/Aster...orplanets.html): 8 planets
Discover Pluto: 9 planets
Demote Pluto: Back to 8

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

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 (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.


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 (Doug)]

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]

Originally Posted by mlcolbert

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.

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. 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]

Originally Posted by mlcolbert

...read the BBC website

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/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!!

[AJames]

Originally Posted by mlcolbert

Read Latour, Science in Action.

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. [In this case Latour might be actually right!]
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 - adjective : [One] not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs.