Search and Replace
-
Search and ReplaceThis might be one of the biggest search and replace actions ever. Imagine the effort to go through tons of databases, reference materials, books, etc. and replace 9 with 8.
That's what will happen since scientists decided Pluto isn't a planet or at least not a "classical planet." Apparently it's a "dwarf planet", but not a real planet in the solar system.
So after 75 years of all of us learning there are 9 planets in the solar system and memorizing their names, we have to now change that to 8.
How many science books in schools around the world are now obsolete? How much data on the internet relating to astronomy now needs to be updated to remove Pluto from the list of planets in our solar system? How many planetariums now need to update their content, reshoot multimedia, or make numerous other changes to comply with this decision.
I know that science wants to be sure they can properly classify the objects they study. And they need to be able to defend those decisons somehow. But I just can't help but see this as ridiculous. And a tremendous waste of time.
Let Pluto live on as a planet, an exception in graduate texts if need be.
I just can't wait to try and explain to my 7 year old that last year we had 9 planets and now we have 8.
Steve Jones
-
That's a classic example why one should leave things untouched that developed historically. Pluto was classified in 1930 as a planet and has been since 2006. Maybe new classifications now show that it's not a planet - but you shouldn't change the status of Pluto because of history.
This is indeed a waste of time. The astronomers could've done something better with their time.
Plus: It's nothing new. Pluto is still a "dwarf planet", meaning he is kind of a planet.
A waste of time...
-
Got to respectfully disagree here. Imagine we didn't correct the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the earth is flat, that the theory of relativity doesn't always work... need I go on.
Change is good and I'd rather admit to and correct an unsupportable 'fact' in the light of new information (no matter how long we have believed it) than end up having to explain why Pluto is a planet but numerous other larger objects within the solar system are not.
The same thing is happening in all kinds of fields - how about genetics that is telling us animals that we previously classified as being the same species actually aren't or vice versa.
It all boils down to getting the definitions of things right up front - not easy when information that was not available when we came up with the definition becomes available later and forces us to either update the definition or re-classify / re-organise things that belong to the definition...
-
I thought that even if Pluto was no longer technicaly a planet under their new clasification system it would retain its planet status for historical reasons.
-
Science always must be constantly askiny itself for its discoveries. It's a good philosophy as distinct from religion.
In terms of romantic though it's a pity such resolution although lots of astronomers did not vote for that...
-
This happens in Biology all the time. New evidence becomes available which leads to species being reclassified, such as the debate...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html
...regarding whether chimpanzees should be classified in the same genus Homo as ourselves (Homo troglodytes, rather than Pan troglodytes), seeing as we share all but a tiny fraction of our DNA characteristics with them. This evidence only became available as the science of gene sequencing developed sufficiently.
If the characteristics that determine whether an astronomical object is a planet or not are important to understanding in the science of astronomy, then it is always appropriate to use the correct terminology for the object.
Having said that, Pluto will always be a planet as far as I am concerned
David
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
-
In any case, I don't see problem at all in trying to explain to anyone that, now, we've available eight instead of nine. ?
My religion is the science.
-
"I just can't wait to try and explain to my 7 year old that last year we had 9 planets and now we have 8. "
Your son will be able to handle it far better than you seem to be able to. It's new information to him, easily adjusted. It's a core belief for you - much harder to change.
Accurate science, though, is always better than dogma.
-
Science is self-correcting, eventually. It's cool.
As to the seven year old, have fun. I started talking about it with my two eight year olds which lead to some explorations, together, on space.com and several trips outside to identify planets & constellations & stars. We had a good time. This is a chance to entertain yourself and your kid while possibly/hopefully instilling an interest in science (as opposed to churning out yet another little business major with a minor in English lit).
I'm still working on the Mrs. to finagle this into buying a telescope (oooh, new toy).
The one question that remains for me, I was taught that Pluto was "discovered" initially as a mathematic anomoly when studying planetary orbits & such. Does the development/discovery of the Kuiper Belt show that math as wrong?
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore RooseveltAuthor of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning -
Ohh to be the guy who's job it is to debate this. I think the whole thing is trivial and stupid. Who cares what someone else believes. Lets remember that Science is theoretical (at least thats what they told us in High School). In other words, there are no "FACTS" as it were in science just theories. It is therefore just a theory that pluto is not a planet, and therefore a theory that Mars, Jupiter, Saturn are. I guess when it all boils down to it, this doesn't directly affect anyone's life. It certainly doesn't affect mine. As far as the textbooks etc. there are many scientific discoveries and changes in principal that cause the books to be rewritten. This is just another one.
All in all, I don't believe that this is that big of a deal, though I find it interesting that we are even bothering to deal with it. Can't the scientists find anything else to argue about? This is akin to my home-town's newspaper printing seemingly un-important facts in the paper just to give the illusion of news. This is the illusion of a discovery.
Aleksei
-
Funny enough- GeekCulture made a cartoon about this one:
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/861.html
For a good laugh--geek culture is always good
-
AllenMWhite,
Unfortunately, neither in Spain (where I live) nor US, science is well view. Our civilization is in decadence as the old ones from the beginning.
Alexandros A Nipirakis,
Science is theoretical? So that my life is not real? As a little point in this blind and deaf universe I believe firmly that everything have a explanation.
Yet not for nothing, but as time goes by, we'll see.
-
well then, if pluto is a dwarf planet... then jupiter should be out as well for being too big... only middle size planets count... now.... but only when they are 'just right'
I coin this the 'Goldilocks and the three planets' theorem of astronomy...
things in the classical story did not fair to well for Goldilocks if memory serves me.... tell your 7 year old some of those original stories.. 'night lights' the size of planets might not help...
-
One of the stories I heard on NPR had some interesting notes on the whole Pluto thing that make it very much not science.
1) The decision on planets is limited to only THIS solar system. they aren't defining what a planet is if it's around any other star.
2) According the the definition of planet that they set out, section C states that for an object to be considered a planet, it must "has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit." This excludes Neptune from being a planet because it has not cleared Pluto from it's orbit, *BUT* in note 1, they specifically classify Neptune as a planet instead of a Dwarf planet which is the definition it matches.
Translation, This isn't a scientific decision, this is a decision to boot pluto to justify not having a planet named Xena added to the roster. and not a very good shot at avoiding that either since their logic is flawed.
-
This whole Mickey Mouse thing about Pluto just seems Goofy to me.
Search and ReplaceViewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 67 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply