6 ms·

That's sort of what bothered me the most at the time. It seemed like the argument was that it was "emotional" or something to keep Pluto a planet when there mig

by derbOac 16d ago

That's sort of what bothered me the most at the time. It seemed like the argument was that it was "emotional" or something to keep Pluto a planet when there might be so many of them. But I never understood why it was less "emotional" to insist that a planet be a certain size or that there should be a certain number of planets.

Timon3 16d ago
It is emotional reasoning to want Pluto to be an exception to an otherwise universal definition, because the reason for the exception are the emotions of some people. Picking any arbitrary generic definition and applying it universally is less emotional, because there is no emotional reasoning necessary to explain why any object is or isn't a planet.
- odyssey7 15d ago
  One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition. Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood? People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t want to say outright. It’s a sort of appeal to authority rather than a scientific claim. That’s dishonest, and people push back when authorities are dishonest with them. We don’t make the rules, this is just what a planet is now. Wait, did you say we do make the rules? No, of course we didn’t vote on what our scientific result should be… that would be unscientific. We ARE science.
  - Timon3 15d ago
    > One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition. This makes no sense to me, can you explain WHY a universal definition is not needed? > Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood? I might be missing a more specific critique, but IIUC, this question only makes sense to me if you presuppose that classifications must never be updated. Because otherwise, the solution is that you do the best you can with the data you have, and accept that better data might come along later and prove you missed something? The same way e.g. classifications in biology are frequently updated? > People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t want to say outright. It’s a sort of appeal to authority rather than a scientific claim. That’s dishonest, and people push back when authorities are dishonest with them. See, this is where you've totally lost me. I can't tell what people apparently can tell. So what is that specific reason? Do you have to wrap your allegations in so many indirect and allusions? This kind of conspiratorial-cryptic writing genuinely reminds me of flat earthers and qanon followers. > We don’t make the rules, this is just what a planet is now. Wait, did you say we do make the rules? No, of course we didn’t vote on what our scientific result should be… that would be unscientific. We ARE science. Did such a vote happen when Pluto got added? I genuinely don't know, but otherwise this objection makes no sense to me.
    - odyssey7 15d ago
      If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. It was a fool’s errand or an act of deception to try to coerce “planet” to be a specialized word. The cracks are evident. The 2006 IAU definition doesn’t work. Specialized words are great. They are important in science. “Planet” is not a specialized word and it has not been a specialized word for hundreds of years. Scientists did not need to somehow coerce “planet” into a specialized term to continue doing science—and if they did, there was still no reason to bother non-specialists about it, since science is its own domain where terms can be used in specialized ways. Yes, update classifications whenever it’s useful to you. No, don’t expect other people to regard your classification system as the final word. You yourself are planning to change it anyway when it stops being useful to you, and other people have a right to categorize things differently for their own purposes — your system will be neither definitive nor universal, so it shows a lack of self-awareness to say that it is. You mention that I make cryptic allusions. “See, this is where you've totally lost me. … So what is that specific reason? Do you have to wrap your allegations in so many indirect and allusions?” To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about. > To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld.
      - Timon3 15d ago
        > If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. Nope. Just like it is okay for scientists in the field of biology to change the definition of "species" as used in their field, it is okay for the same to happen for the word "planet", even if the general public then argues everyone should use the updated definition in everyday language. That's how language happens and evolves, and that's how we got these words! If this were not the case, Pluto would never have been added as a planet. You were okay with every change until that point - yeah, of course you agree with the changes up to what you were taught, even if there's no argument for what makes them different! You have to understand: there's no conspiracy behind the IAU that's making people argue against you! It's literally just individual people disagreeing with your disagreement. --- Regarding your edit: > To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about. > > To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld. In the article, I see literally no reason given by Kornfeld to assume anything but an honest disagreement. Okay, great, they think the definition should fulfill a requirement that the majority apparently doesn't see as necessary. How do they get from this to people inventing a reason to specifically exclude Pluto? There's no reason given to assume bad faith?

by derbOac 16d ago

Timon3 16d ago

It is emotional reasoning to want Pluto to be an exception to an otherwise universal definition, because the reason for the exception are the emotions of some people. Picking any arbitrary generic definition and applying it universally is less emotional, because there is no emotional reasoning necessary to explain why any object is or isn't a planet.

odyssey7 15d ago
One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition. Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood? People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t want to say outright. It’s a sort of appeal to authority rather than a scientific claim. That’s dishonest, and people push back when authorities are dishonest with them. We don’t make the rules, this is just what a planet is now. Wait, did you say we do make the rules? No, of course we didn’t vote on what our scientific result should be… that would be unscientific. We ARE science.
- Timon3 15d ago
  > One of the parts that makes people emotional is that they’re plainly being lied to about the premise of needing a universal definition. This makes no sense to me, can you explain WHY a universal definition is not needed? > Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood? I might be missing a more specific critique, but IIUC, this question only makes sense to me if you presuppose that classifications must never be updated. Because otherwise, the solution is that you do the best you can with the data you have, and accept that better data might come along later and prove you missed something? The same way e.g. classifications in biology are frequently updated? > People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t want to say outright. It’s a sort of appeal to authority rather than a scientific claim. That’s dishonest, and people push back when authorities are dishonest with them. See, this is where you've totally lost me. I can't tell what people apparently can tell. So what is that specific reason? Do you have to wrap your allegations in so many indirect and allusions? This kind of conspiratorial-cryptic writing genuinely reminds me of flat earthers and qanon followers. > We don’t make the rules, this is just what a planet is now. Wait, did you say we do make the rules? No, of course we didn’t vote on what our scientific result should be… that would be unscientific. We ARE science. Did such a vote happen when Pluto got added? I genuinely don't know, but otherwise this objection makes no sense to me.
  - odyssey7 15d ago
    If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. It was a fool’s errand or an act of deception to try to coerce “planet” to be a specialized word. The cracks are evident. The 2006 IAU definition doesn’t work. Specialized words are great. They are important in science. “Planet” is not a specialized word and it has not been a specialized word for hundreds of years. Scientists did not need to somehow coerce “planet” into a specialized term to continue doing science—and if they did, there was still no reason to bother non-specialists about it, since science is its own domain where terms can be used in specialized ways. Yes, update classifications whenever it’s useful to you. No, don’t expect other people to regard your classification system as the final word. You yourself are planning to change it anyway when it stops being useful to you, and other people have a right to categorize things differently for their own purposes — your system will be neither definitive nor universal, so it shows a lack of self-awareness to say that it is. You mention that I make cryptic allusions. “See, this is where you've totally lost me. … So what is that specific reason? Do you have to wrap your allegations in so many indirect and allusions?” To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about. > To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld.
    - Timon3 15d ago
      > If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. Nope. Just like it is okay for scientists in the field of biology to change the definition of "species" as used in their field, it is okay for the same to happen for the word "planet", even if the general public then argues everyone should use the updated definition in everyday language. That's how language happens and evolves, and that's how we got these words! If this were not the case, Pluto would never have been added as a planet. You were okay with every change until that point - yeah, of course you agree with the changes up to what you were taught, even if there's no argument for what makes them different! You have to understand: there's no conspiracy behind the IAU that's making people argue against you! It's literally just individual people disagreeing with your disagreement. --- Regarding your edit: > To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about. > > To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld. In the article, I see literally no reason given by Kornfeld to assume anything but an honest disagreement. Okay, great, they think the definition should fulfill a requirement that the majority apparently doesn't see as necessary. How do they get from this to people inventing a reason to specifically exclude Pluto? There's no reason given to assume bad faith?