Pluto is was and always will be a planet

lomiller said:
Disagreeing with the recognised definition is not a licence to use a different one.
Click to expand...

One doesn't need a license to use a different definition. For one thing, the IAU definition isn't "the" definition of planet. It's only one of multiple definitions in use. One need not go full Humpty Dumpty in order to choose something other than the IAU definition.

Belz... said:
Indeed. Otherwise the woo-woo tactic of discrediting, say, science in order to bolster creationism would be valid.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. The science-vs-creationism argument isn't about the definition of words, and the IAU's choice of definitions isn't uniquely determined by science either. This is an unfair and invalid criticism of theprestige's post. lomiller was closer to a valid objection, but he missed the mark too.
 
Ziggurat said:
Uh, no. The science-vs-creationism argument isn't about the definition of words, and the IAU's choice of definitions isn't uniquely determined by science either. This is an unfair and invalid criticism of theprestige's post. lomiller was closer to a valid objection, but he missed the mark too.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you misunderstood. I'm talking about the "if I take down one definition, mine wins by default" attitude being described, and comparing it with the same sort of tactic by creationists.
 
Belz... said:
I'm sure you misunderstood. I'm talking about the "if I take down one definition, mine wins by default" attitude being described, and comparing it with the same sort of tactic by creationists.
Click to expand...

You're correct, I did misunderstand. But I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of theprestige's position either, although it makes more sense than my prior misinterpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom