Pluto is was and always will be a planet

Darat said:
No we don't. The easiest way to get everyone alongside with a new definition would be to say "historically we have 9 bodies that we call planets, for any future body to be considered a planet it needs to meet the following criteria...." Then purists could say under their breaths "drawf planet" when anyone calls Pluto a planet and Plutophiles can under their breaths say "yes a planet" when Pluto is described as a drawf planet.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that has anything to do with what I was saying, as I explained it to theprestige.
 
Belz... said:
That sounds a bit circular. You've defined 'good' as excluding that reason, and then used that to call it bad.
Click to expand...

No, I've defined a good definition as one that helps us make sense of the world, then noted that the motivation the you outlined for the new definition of planet is not in line with that, and so I'd consider it a bad definition.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure that has anything to do with what I was saying, as I explained it to theprestige.
Click to expand...

The first sentence was stating that your statement "If we're to keep the definition, we have to apply it to the objects we know of now" is not true.

I then gave an example of how we could create a new definition that grandfathered in the "old 9" planets but set a different definition for any new bodies that have been or are in found in the future.
 
Darat said:
The first sentence was stating that your statement "If we're to keep the definition, we have to apply it to the objects we know of now" is not true.

I then gave an example of how we could create a new definition that grandfathered in the "old 9" planets but set a different definition for any new bodies that have been or are in found in the future.
Click to expand...

Not with that definition, you don't. You'd have to alter the old definition, as every moving star qualified. Hell, even the sun.

Roboramma said:
No, I've defined a good definition as one that helps us make sense of the world, then noted that the motivation the you outlined for the new definition of planet is not in line with that, and so I'd consider it a bad definition.
Click to expand...

Ok how does it not help us?
 
This like the whole "marriage" definition argument. Why argue over the definition of a word when it's so much more fun to create new ones?

Given we've got plutoids, plutinos, exoplanets, cubanos and centaurs can't you use a little imagination and develop some new terminology?
 
sphenisc said:
This like the whole "marriage" definition argument. Why argue over the definition of a word when it's so much more fun to create new ones?

Given we've got plutoids, plutinos, exoplanets, cubanos and centaurs can't you use a little imagination and develop some new terminology?
Click to expand...

We could have a term for all bodies that ressemble an existing one:
Jupiterians, Saturnids, Neptunons, Earthoids, Mercuratrons, Marsism, Venusi, Uranals.
 
Darat said:
No we don't. The easiest way to get everyone alongside with a new definition would be to say "historically we have 9 bodies that we call planets, for any future body to be considered a planet it needs to meet the following criteria...." Then purists could say under their breaths "drawf planet" when anyone calls Pluto a planet and Plutophiles can under their breaths say "yes a planet" when Pluto is described as a drawf planet.
Click to expand...

Of course historically to say that you have to ignore history or you get ceres back as a planet.
 
Belz... said:
Ok how does it not help us?
Click to expand...

You said that the motivation for the particular definition of planet was not to differentiate between separate categories of objects whose differences offer insights about the world, but rather to limit the number of members of that category.

You don't see that that's clearly not about helping us to better understand the world?

If you want to argue that that definition is about better understanding the world, feel free. But if the point is simply to limit the number of planets to some arbitrary number, then that's the point, and the point isn't about understanding.
 
Roboramma said:
You said that the motivation for the particular definition of planet was not to differentiate between separate categories of objects whose differences offer insights about the world, but rather to limit the number of members of that category.
Click to expand...

I think it's a major part of the reason, yes. It may not be the whole story.

You don't see that that's clearly not about helping us to better understand the world?
Click to expand...

No. Make your case.

If you want to argue that that definition is about better understanding the world, feel free.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's the definition now. I think you have the burden to argue against it. Hell, I don't even agree with the definition. At least explain why.
 
Belz... said:
Not with that definition, you don't. You'd have to alter the old definition, as every moving star qualified. Hell, even the sun.
Click to expand...

Of course you can, just decide to grandfather in the good old group of nine, and that's what the definition I gave started with.
 
Darat said:
Of course you can, just decide to grandfather in the good old group of nine, and that's what the definition I gave started with.
Click to expand...

Well, ok, but that's not what the definition was. You're instead defining these bodies as planets because they met the definition at time X.
 
Belz... said:
Wait, did I? I promise, it wasn't that sophisticated.
Click to expand...
11925b9a7b4b17071.jpg
 
Belz... said:
Well, ok, but that's not what the definition was. You're instead defining these bodies as planets because they met the definition at time X.
Click to expand...

No the grandfathering is based on "common usage" of say the last 50 years, and in that time Pluto was known as a planet - doesn't matter why it was known as a planet.
 
Darat said:
No the grandfathering is based on "common usage" of say the last 50 years, and in that time Pluto was known as a planet - doesn't matter why it was known as a planet.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying that it's then not following the definition given earlier, but rather defining planets as that exact list. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not following the definition as stated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom