Poll: Pluto, is it still a planet?

[Dr_Matt]

I'm not going to read huge amounts of someone else's argument just because you're too far up your own arse to have the common human courtesy to explain your point of view to someone you started an argument with.

Since you asked nicely, here's the abbreviated version. The linguist/philosopher maintains that scientific definitions are subjective. The scientist maintains that they are not (at least in the physical sciences). There was an agreement to disagree on the point.

 

[PuppetMaster]

If a rock orbits a larger rock it's a moon, if a rock orbits a star it's a planet. With me so far, science?

Using this definition could you imagine memorizing the millions of planets in grade school.

lol ya, that would be pretty rediculous, but I don't make the rules, just call em like I see em

 

[Epifols]

If the scientists say it's not a planet, then it's not a planet. It's not like this is a subjective thing.

Actually I'd say the whole matter is a subjective thing. This can be shown by the fact that a debate even existed.

Also, OP, never make a poll without an 'other' option. I really don't care what we call some flying crap out on the edge of our solar system. So 'other' would have been a much more apt choice.

 

[Dr_Matt]

dictionary definition. also called planetoid, but noone uses that term

That one was used officially prior to the '06 definitions of planet, dwarf planet, small solar system body, etc.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

Yeah, I love Pluto!

 

[Maze1125]

I'm not going to read huge amounts of someone else's argument just because you're too far up your own arse to have the common human courtesy to explain your point of view to someone you started an argument with.

Since you asked nicely, here's the abbreviated version. The linguist/philosopher maintains that scientific definitions are subjective. The scientist maintains that they are not (at least in the physical sciences). There was an agreement to disagree on the point.

So, in fact, there was no conclusion.
Which means I have to wonder why you were so unwilling to continue the discussion with me when you know full well that informed people still can disagree with you?

And it turns out I had already read your argument, I just assumed you must have been referring to somewhere else in the thread as I didn't even think someone would be as absurd as to refuse to argue with someone and instead refer them to an argument that had never been concluded.

 

[PuppetMaster]

dictionary definition. also called planetoid, but noone uses that term

That one was used officially prior to the '06 definitions of planet, dwarf planet, small solar system body, etc.

the more you know... at any rate, in this world of 72" tv, satelite cameras that can count the hairs on your knuckles from space and trucks that burn through gas faster than an actual gas fire it seems a little eliteist to exclude a significant celestial body if it's not as big as our other toys

 

[Dr_Matt]

So, in fact, there was no conclusion.
Which means I have to wonder why you were so unwilling to continue the discussion with me when you know full well that informed people still can disagree with you?

And it turns out I had already read your argument, I just assumed you must have been referring to somewhere else in the thread as I didn't even think someone would be as absurd as to refuse to argue with someone and instead refer them to an argument that had never been concluded.

If you want to add something to the discussion, please, go ahead - there was no refusal to continue the discussion. As you say, my point of view has already been recorded. I simply replied to one of your original queries about the members of the community that disgreed with the classification scheme.

 

[Yubadias]

Well, it was universally announced as a Dwarf Planet in 2006, so I don't think this is a discussion.

 

[Lexodus]

FUCK YES. I grew up with it as a planet and no adult-nerd is going to convince me otherwise.

 

[Maze1125]

So, in fact, there was no conclusion.
Which means I have to wonder why you were so unwilling to continue the discussion with me when you know full well that informed people still can disagree with you?

And it turns out I had already read your argument, I just assumed you must have been referring to somewhere else in the thread as I didn't even think someone would be as absurd as to refuse to argue with someone and instead refer them to an argument that had never been concluded.

If you want to add something to the discussion, please, go ahead - there was no refusal to continue the discussion. As you say, my point of view has already been recorded. I simply replied to one of your original queries about the members of the community that disgreed with the classification scheme.

Well, quite frankly, I don't see how there can be a discussion.
It is subjective. It is subject to what a group of people think. That very clearly falls under the meaning of the word "subjective".

Yes, mathematics and science benefit hugely from precise and universally agreed definitions (although in this case, the benefit is in fact minimal) but that doesn't make the definitions objective, just agreed upon.

 

[stone0042]

Twill always be a planet in my book

 

[oppp7]

I wasn't sure because it's a dwarf planet, so I put no. It's pretty much an asteroid from what I remember. It's not even the biggest one either. If it was a planet, then Eris (or whatever it's called) would have to be considered one too.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yes, mathematics and science benefit hugely from precise and universally agreed definitions (although in this case, the benefit is in fact minimal) but that doesn't make the definitions objective, just agreed upon.

The borders between the definitions are subjective from the point of view of the ruling body for those definitions.

However, the actual catagorization within those definitions are objective, which was the entire reason for the alteration of those definitions.

Suggesting that subjectivity of the definitions from the point of view of the ruling body extends to say that classifications within those definitions are subjective is a fallacy.

The very reason the definitions -were- changed was so that designations of certain bodies would no longer be subjective, but they could be classified objectively.

Previous to then, Pluto was a planet because of subjective definition. However, the discovery of Eris turned that definition on its ear and challenged the scientific community to come up with a system of designations that -was- objective.

Essentially, they either had to come up with a designation that fit the current system, or abandon it and start again. They chose the latter, and they had their reasons for doing so. Expert reasons that one versed in the field can understand, and present a valid and relevant opinion on.

Outside of that field, however, you could state that the subjectivity of the objections means you can form your own opinion, and you can. However without the benefit of that valid and relevant reasoning, your opinion is not informed.

So, yes, you can have an ignorant opinion that Pluto is a planet. Or you can present a valid and relevant argument as to why it should be. And 'Grandfather clause' doesn't exist in serious scientific endevours, so good luck with that.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Well i still consider Pluto to be a planet. . . Also that new one if it is indeed found.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

It doesnt matter what anyone thinks about Pluto.

It officially isnt a planet anymore. And to be honest it always seemed a tad to small to be to be a planet.

 

[Astoria]

Well it's a 'dwarf planet' so doesn't that mean it's still a planet, just a very small one? Anyway, I've grown up with it being a planet and who knows, they might change their mind in a few decades and say it's a planet again.

 

[Hap2]

Lovely to see people applying human status in terms of 'promotion' and 'demotion' to an f'ing hunk of rock and ice out in space. If people would bother to actually talk to an astronomer and not bother with the bloody stupid media who have no idea what they are talking about...

Pluto is a planet, though a different class of planet called a dwarf planet, due to its overlapping orbit with Neptune.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet

Pluto was put into a different category to help better reflect, define, and understand other planetoids also found in our system. But of course, silly people equate 'dwarf' with being 'small and weak', or 'not good enough' to be in the same category as the Gas-Giants and other terrestrial worlds like Earth and Mars are. Just another example of humans bringing dogma to the table rather than understanding the situation proper.

 

[Patinator]

One of the most critical points of science is that we look at things objectively. If, objectively, it doesn't fit the classification of a planet, then we should not call it one.

I dug around and found the article Bill Nye (The Science Guy)wrote on this. He even mentions why it is relevant, even if it seems trivial.
So please, if you don't do it for science, do it for Bill Nye, vote no.

http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/topten/nye_pluto_is.html

 

[boholikeu]

I used to be in the "Pluto is still a planet!!! *sniff*" crowd.

Then I actually read why they changed Pluto's status.

If Pluto is a planet, then we have hundreds of planets in the solar system.