Pluto is was and always will be a planet

Dancing David said:
I think that Neil DeGrasse Tyson's argument mainly came down to "One of these things is not like the others"
Click to expand...

That would be a silly argument. No two things are identical. And Pluto was very much like the eight planets in one very important way: It was classified as a planet.

Reclassifying it was literally an exercise in taking something that was like the others, and declaring it unlike the others. A gratuitous and subjective exercise, no less. Belz... urged us to move beyond feelings on this question, but all along my position has been that it is a question of feelings, nothing more.

It's basically the nonsensical "but then Ceres would be a planet!" objection, wrapped up in a layer of sciency-sounding obfuscation.
 
theprestige said:
That would be a silly argument. No two things are identical. And Pluto was very much like the eight planets in one very important way: It was classified as a planet.

Reclassifying it was literally an exercise in taking something that was like the others, and declaring it unlike the others. A gratuitous and subjective exercise, no less. Belz... urged us to move beyond feelings on this question, but all along my position has been that it is a question of feelings, nothing more.

It's basically the nonsensical "but then Ceres would be a planet!" objection, wrapped up in a layer of sciency-sounding obfuscation.
Click to expand...

Plus, even numbers suck.
 
theprestige said:
I really don't understand this line of inquiry at all.

You're the one saying there's a problem with too many planets, necessitating a solution of some sort.
I'm asking that if too many planets is a problem, why not solve it with subcategories, the same way astronomers have done with stars?

But this conversation is starting to get very one-sided. I've been answering your questions, but you keep truncating my posts and ignoring mine. If you're not going to answer my questions, Belz..., why should I keep answering yours?
Click to expand...

But you're not answering mine. Here you say, in the highlighted, that I'm the one claiming there's a problem, and called it apparent, so I concluded you didn't think there was one, then you hinted that that wasn't true. What the hell DO you think? Is there a problem or not?

As for truncating, this is an oft-repeated objection, as if I have to include the whole post even when I'm responding to specific points. It's nothing more than an attempt to confuse the discussion rather than engage me. Either answer the question or just say you're unwilling to do so. I'll drop the question if you do the latter, but I don't see why answer would be such a problem.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
But you're not answering mine. Here you say, in the highlighted, that I'm the one claiming there's a problem, and called it apparent, so I concluded you didn't think there was one, then you hinted that that wasn't true. What the hell DO you think? Is there a problem or not?
Click to expand...
I still don't understand this line of inquiry.

I'm happy to stipulate that "too many planets" is a problem for the IAU. I thought that's the problem we were talking about all along.

But now you're asking me what the problem is. So now I don't know anymore, Belz... What *is* the problem?

You keep truncating the parts of my posts where I ask you questions in an attempt to understand your position and further the discussion. This leads to a one-sided interrogation, where you get answers and I do not. That's not a form of discussion that I care to participate in.

What do you think is the problem, Belz...? Just tell me what problem you want to discuss, and I will happily stipulate the problem for the sake of discussion.

If you can't answer that question, I'll just as happily conclude that - in terms of your own arguments - there is no problem and reclassifying Pluto was completely unnecessary.

If you *won't* answer that question, while still expecting me to answer yours... Well, like the man said, "I thought we were having a pleasant conversation about real ideas and criteria".
 
theprestige said:
I still don't understand this line of inquiry.

I'm happy to stipulate that "too many planets" is a problem for the IAU. I thought that's the problem we were talking about all along.

But now you're asking me what the problem is.
Click to expand...

No, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM. Not fo the IAU, but in YOUR opinion.

Sorry for shouting.

You keep truncating the parts of my posts where I ask you questions in an attempt to understand your position and further the discussion. This leads to a one-sided interrogation, where you get answers and I do not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I want to get through this one before we move on, and given your evasiveness I'm not really very willing to answer questions myself.

What do you think is the problem, Belz...?
Click to expand...

I've already answered this one, however.
 
Belz... said:
No, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM. Not fo the IAU, but in YOUR opinion.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything, though?

I mean, he's willing to discuss the issue on your terms. Whether or not he thinks it's a problem shouldn't really matter.

It's also a sort of philosophical issue: is a problem still a problem once it's been solved? Who cares? We all know what we're talking about.

Is "too many floors" a problem in apartment buildings? Well, it was, until someone invented elevators. If someone came along and said we should limit apartment buildings to 6 floors to avoid having to climb too many flights of stairs I'd say they were trying to solve a problem that's already been solved. Does that mean I think "too many floors" is a problem? That's just semantics and doesn't add anything to that discussion, and similarly I think your question here to theprestige doesn't add anything either.
 
Bob the Coward recently said that he didn't want mutual understanding. At first I was outraged, but after giving it some thought I realized that he had a firm grasp of one of the through lines of this community.

I've asked repeatedly why astronomers didn't solve the problem of too many planets the same way they solved the problem of too many stars. And what is the result? Belz... is now confused about what problem we're talking about.
 
The important thing is to divide everything that exists into clear, firm categories so labels can be applied. Then we only have to learn about the labels and not the items themselves, making everything so much simpler. Because that's what science is, right? Ignoring complexity in favor of an easier simplicity?
 
Roboramma said:
What does that have to do with anything, though?
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that that's what we're discussing? :confused:

It's also a sort of philosophical issue: is a problem still a problem once it's been solved?
Click to expand...

What? The question is whether there's a problem at all. I'm genuinely confused about theprestige's position on this. It's hard to discuss whether a solution is needed or was needed if there's no answer to that question.

theprestige said:
I've asked repeatedly why astronomers didn't solve the problem of too many planets the same way they solved the problem of too many stars. And what is the result? Belz... is now confused about what problem we're talking about.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'm confused about is why you won't answer the simple question: do YOU believe there was a problem that needed solving in the first place?
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
The important thing is to divide everything that exists into clear, firm categories so labels can be applied. Then we only have to learn about the labels and not the items themselves, making everything so much simpler. Because that's what science is, right? Ignoring complexity in favor of an easier simplicity?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure against which position you're arguing, but I don't think anyone is ignoring the complexity. We're each simply seeing it from different perspectives, and none of the proposed scenarios changes that complexity or seeks to hide it.
 
Belz... said:
No, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM. Not fo the IAU, but in YOUR opinion.

Sorry for shouting.



Sorry, but I want to get through this one before we move on, and given your evasiveness I'm not really very willing to answer questions myself.



I've already answered this one, however.
Click to expand...

I think theprestige's point was that there was never any need to change Pluto from planet to dwarf planet. All the reasons given for doing so are specious.
 
angrysoba said:
I think theprestige's point was that there was never any need to change Pluto from planet to dwarf planet.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought he meant, but now I'm not sure. In any case that's a fair opinion.

All the reasons given for doing so are specious.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know. As a layman I don't find myself much qualified to question the pros on this. We can agree or disagree but in the end they know their stuff more than we do. In any case this may be reversed or changed in the future.

Personally my problem with the new definition isn't that Pluto's excluded, but that I don't find the 'clearing' criterion very useful. It's also a judgment call, which is fine, but not as objective as the other criteria. I do agree with the need to categorise, although as I've stated to Zig earlier on, simply splitting 'planet' into subcategories rather than redefining it and creating new categories would've been fine, too.
 
Belz... said:
That's what I thought he meant, but now I'm not sure. In any case that's a fair opinion.



Well I don't know. As a layman I don't find myself much qualified to question the pros on this. We can agree or disagree but in the end they know their stuff more than we do. In any case this may be reversed or changed in the future.

Personally my problem with the new definition isn't that Pluto's excluded, but that I don't find the 'clearing' criterion very useful. It's also a judgment call, which is fine, but not as objective as the other criteria. I do agree with the need to categorise, although as I've stated to Zig earlier on, simply splitting 'planet' into subcategories rather than redefining it and creating new categories would've been fine, too.
Click to expand...

That works for me too.
 
Belz... said:
Personally my problem with the new definition isn't that Pluto's excluded, but that I don't find the 'clearing' criterion very useful. It's also a judgment call, which is fine, but not as objective as the other criteria. I do agree with the need to categorise, although as I've stated to Zig earlier on, simply splitting 'planet' into subcategories rather than redefining it and creating new categories would've been fine, too.
Click to expand...

It sounds like we all agree.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure against which position you're arguing, but I don't think anyone is ignoring the complexity. We're each simply seeing it from different perspectives, and none of the proposed scenarios changes that complexity or seeks to hide it.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing against both sides. We don't need to say Pluto is or isn't a "planet" because the exact definition of a "planet" isn't important. We know that Pluto is different from the other planets in significant ways, and similar to them in significant ways, so it's special and can be considered either or both.

Ruling a line between every object that is a planet and every object that isn't a planet and deciding once and for all which side Pluto falls on achieves nothing. It won't help in understanding Pluto--in fact it'll be detrimental because it'll then be easier to gloss over the contradictions between Pluto's reality and whichever descriptive label we slap it with.

Pluto is a special snowflake (at least until we find a few hundred thousand more of them in other systems!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom