Pluto is was and always will be a planet

[theprestige]

Even though it's been explained numerous times?

The explanation always seems to be some combination of repeating the claim plus special pleading. So, not really much of an explanation, regardless of how often it's been put forward.

The idea is that planets would be named. Planetoids need not be.

This is an example of what I mean by special pleading.

Astronomers have to deal with millions of stars. Some have names, but stars need not be named, and most are not named.

Astronomers have to deal with millions of galaxies. Some have names, but galaxies need not be named, and most are not named.

Astronomers have to deal with (potentially) thousands of planets? ... And they all... have to be named? So let's have less planets to make their job easier?

Taken in the context of astronomy in general, which already has to deal with vast numbers of study-able objects, regardless of how the categories are sliced, the "too many planets" argument makes no sense.

The convenience sources about the IAU's decision all have a "history is written by the victors" feel to them. Which is to say, they read more as justifications of a fait accompli than as a frank exposition of the debate within the IAU leading up to the decision.

 

[theprestige]

That's a very good point. I'd call any natural sattelite without hydrostatic equilibrium a 'moonlet'.

Would "moonlet" be a subcategory of "moon", in your taxonomy, or a separate category from "moon"?

 

[Belz...]

The explanation always seems to be some combination of repeating the claim plus special pleading.

Well either I've been expressing myself poorly or you're misinterpreting what I said.

This is an example of what I mean by special pleading.

Why?

Astronomers have to deal with millions of stars. Some have names, but stars need not be named, and most are not named.

We're not discussing stars. We're discussing planets, specifically in the context of the Sol system.

Astronomers have to deal with (potentially) thousands of planets? ... And they all... have to be named? So let's have less planets to make their job easier?

Nobody said that all planets everywhere needed to be named. See above. Again, you are adding meaning where none exists. Obviously you can't name 50 trillion planets.

 

[Belz...]

Would "moonlet" be a subcategory of "moon", in your taxonomy, or a separate category from "moon"?

Good question. I'd lean toward the latter, if we're to be consistent.

So:
- Stars
- Planets
- Planetoids
- Moons
- Moonlets
- Asteroids
- Comets

 

[theprestige]

Well, by that logic you could call _every_ human decision based on feelings, because even when you're making a call based on data and evidence, say in peer-reviewing an article or when deliberating as a juror, you're going to make that call based on how 'good' it feels to you. But then that makes the distinction pointless. My initial point about feelings was not that it had to be a robot-like decision, but one at least based on some argument and evidence rather than just "eh, it doesn't feel right to me".



You mean it "feels" stupid, right? ; )

To be clear: I think "feels right" is an appropriate criteria with which to judge planets. You do not. "Feels" stupid is a problem for you, not for me.

Exactly where it is now, actually. I don't plan on naming all exoplanets, either.

If you decouple the naming requirement from the definition, then it becomes nonsensical to say that the definition should accommodate the naming requirement. Remember when I said that deviating from the general case risks incoherency of thought?

 

[Belz...]

To be clear: I think "feels right" is an appropriate criteria with which to judge planets. You do not.

The reason is that it's a lot harder to get people to agree about these things if you have to align their feelings rather than have them share more objective reasons. Do you still disagree?

If you decouple the naming requirement from the definition, then it becomes nonsensical to say that the definition should accommodate the naming requirement.

Again: for the Sol system. Call it a bonus feature. It's not central. I guess you could call Venus "Sol 2" for all I care.

 

[theprestige]

You know, for a time I thought we were having a pleasant conversation about real ideas and criteria, until you came up with your insulting strawman.

Good luck with that.

That was in no way directed at you. Please don't take it personally.

And given that I think "planet" is as much a literary concept as a scientific one, I would say that while I crafted that proposal in jest, the ideas and criteria it expresses are real enough and just as valid as the IAU's preferred definition.

 

[Belz...]

That was in no way directed at you. Please don't take it personally.

And given that I think "planet" is as much a literary concept as a scientific one, I would say that while I crafted that proposal in jest, the ideas and criteria it expresses are real enough and just as valid as the IAU's preferred definition.

Yeah, never mind. We're good.

 

[theprestige]

Well either I've been expressing myself poorly or you're misinterpreting what I said.

One of those two things, yes.

Why [do I call it special pleading]?

Because it proposes a special solution to a problem that is already solved by the general case. It multiplies entities unnecessarily.

We're not discussing stars. We're discussing planets, specifically in the context of the Sol system.

The way I see it, we're discussing astronomers' difficulty in studying categories with a large number of members, and asking why planets are astronomically more difficult to deal with than other large categories that are commonly dealt with in the same field.

Nobody said that all planets everywhere needed to be named. See above. Again, you are adding meaning where none exists. Obviously you can't name 50 trillion planets.

Then it seems to me that naming isn't actually a constraint that needs to be taken into account when defining what a planet is.

You've put forward "manageable number of elements in the set" as a constraint that should be taken into account when defining planets. However, we know that it's not a real constraint, since astronomers already manage sets with millions and trillions of elements in them.

You've put forward naming as a constraint that should be taken into account, but we know that's not a real constraint either, since astronomers already manage sets with more elements than they care to name. Indeed, you immediately relaxed that constraint.

 

[Belz...]

One of those two things, yes.

I say we determine it via rock-paper-scissors.

Because it proposes a special solution to a problem that is already solved by the general case. It multiplies entities unnecessarily.

Do you mean that it multiplies categories? The number of entities does not change.

The way I see it, we're discussing astronomers' difficulty in studying categories with a large number of members, and asking why planets are astronomically more difficult to deal with than other large categories that are commonly dealt with in the same field.

No necessarily the difficulty, but rather the usefulness of having subcategories or different categories. It also has a layman upside, as discussed prior. Extrasolar planets can be designated differently as they're not likely to enter discussion outside of the field.

You've put forward "manageable number of elements in the set" as a constraint that should be taken into account when defining planets.

Again I stress: within the solar system.

 

[theprestige]

The reason is that it's a lot harder to get people to agree about these things if you have to align their feelings rather than have them share more objective reasons. Do you still disagree?

I agree that it is hard. I disagree that it being hard is a good reason to dismiss feelings in this case.

Again: for the Sol system. Call it a bonus feature. It's not central. I guess you could call Venus "Sol 2" for all I care.

It seems like I may have misunderstood the issue of naming. It's not actually a constraint we should consider?

 

[Belz...]

I agree that it is hard. I disagree that it being hard is a good reason to dismiss feelings in this case.

I only dismiss feelings when they're the only basis for a definition.

It seems like I may have misunderstood the issue of naming. It's not actually a constraint we should consider?

As I said, it's more of a bonus for laypersons.

 

[theprestige]

I say we determine it via rock-paper-scissors.

Monomachy is a terrible way to determine correctness. I will appeal to the lurkers to resolve this dispute.

Do you mean that it multiplies categories? The number of entities does not change.

I mean that you are proposing a solution to a problem that already has a solution, making your proposed solution redundant and an overcomplication of the problem.

No necessarily the difficulty, but rather the usefulness of having subcategories or different categories. It also has a layman upside, as discussed prior. Extrasolar planets can be designated differently as they're not likely to enter discussion outside of the field.

Not all categories and subcategories are created equal. Some are more useful than others. It is exactly the claimed usefulness of this particular new category that is being debated.

The value of the "layman upside" is in dispute.

And extrasolar planets enter lay discussions all the time. There are huge subcategories of major, profitable industries, devoted to lay discussion of extrasolar planets and related concepts.

Again I stress: within the solar system.

I don't understand the importance of this distinction.

 

[theprestige]

I only dismiss feelings when they're the only basis for a definition.

Their feelings about having to manage a large number of "planets" seems to be the only basis for the IAU's definition. Indeed, the 19th-century decision to separate "planets" and "asteroids" seems to have been similarly based on the feelings of astronomers alone.

As I said, it's more of a bonus for laypersons.

Is there any argument in favor of the definition, that isn't about feelings?

Also, having too many planets to name wasn't a problem I actually had, and it's kind of creepy and intrusive for the IAU to claim that they're solving it. Between adults, "I'm doing this for your own good" always raises my hackles. I don't need the IAU to throw me a bone on planet-naming.

 

[Belz...]

I mean that you are proposing a solution to a problem that already has a solution

Just to be sure: what problem and already existing solution is that?

The value of the "layman upside" is in dispute.

Sure, that's fair. That's why I consider it mostly a bonus, although we do talk about planets rather often.

And extrasolar planets enter lay discussions all the time.

Rarely individually.

I don't understand the importance of this distinction.

Well, those named planets right right here in our system. It's expected that we'll discuss them individually more often, which makes them having a name make sense. The minor planets, not much.

 

[mumblethrax]

Which is kind of the point, I think. The IAU's position seems to be, in summary, "if we call Pluto a planet, we have to call a lot of other things planets, and that's too much work. So we need a rule that's tailored specifically to admit most of the traditional planets, but exclude Pluto and things like Pluto."

I mean, they've already got a name for Pluto, and it's more or less impossible to un-name it, so they probably don't really care about excluding Pluto. Pluto just got in the way.

They do probably want to avoid naming a few hundred more planets, the lazy gold-brickers. Look, it's your job, IAU. Sure, you'll eventually run out of names and then we'll have planets like "Skinny Pete" and "Molly McButter" and "Dave: The Planet", but we didn't award you the planet-naming contract so you could not name planets.

 

[theprestige]

Just to be sure: what problem and already existing solution is that?

Subcategories for ease of study focus. Naming only the ones that need naming, and leaving the rest to their serial numbers.

It's not like Hertzsprung and Russell looked at all the stars out there and said, "well, we're going to have difficulty discussing and studying all that stuff if it's all stars, so we better narrow the definition a bit." No, they looked at all the stars out there and divided them into subcategories.

Similarly, Astronomers didn't look at the Andromeda Galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds, and say, "we'd better narrow the definition of 'galaxy' otherwise we'll have to name trillions of the things." No, they just stopped naming every new galaxy they found.

So we know that astronomers already have a perfectly cromulent solution to the problem of "lots of members of a set", that doesn't depend on redefining the set to reduce the number of members.

And that is the part that's missing from the IAU's origin story for the new definition: A discussion of why they didn't just apply the existing solution.

 

[theprestige]

JSure, that's fair. That's why I consider it mostly a bonus, although we do talk about planets rather often.

We name things we talk about often. That seems like a self-solving problem to me. The IAU could easily use serial numbers and subcategories for their scientific discussions, and let us laymen name the stuff that's important to us.

If SOL-8675309 starts coming up a lot in conversation, we'll start calling it "Jenny" for convenience, and the rest will be history. The IAU doesn't need to redefine anything, or preemptively help us out with that.

Rarely individually.

There's a long-running, hugely popular TV franchise that discusses a new exoplanet individually, almost every week.

More seriously: If some serial-numbered plutoid becomes a topic of ongoing interest, it'll get named, either by the IAU or the public, regardless of how it's categorized.

Well, those named planets right right here in our system. It's expected that we'll discuss them individually more often, which makes them having a name make sense. The minor planets, not much.

I think this reverses the proper positions of cart and horse. We gave them names because we were discussing them a lot.

It's kind of patronizing to say (on the IAU's behalf), "we know you'll probably want to talk about this one, so we're going to give you a name for it". I can't think of any other field of science where this "naming" is a serious concern for taxonomists.

 

[Pope130]

Some of the rejected planets already have names. Sedna is designated a dwarf planet. As I recall she is what set off the debate about Pluto. When found it was called a Kuiper-belt body, until it was determined that it met the definition of planet at least as well as Pluto. Rather than add Sedna they decided to demote Pluto.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Would "moonlet" be a subcategory of "moon", in your taxonomy, or a separate category from "moon"?

satelite