|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pluto's planet status | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, I'm sure most of us have heard that they demoted Pluto from planetary status: National Geographic News about it.
I thought this could spark an interesting discussion about the tentativity of science. I think some creationists might use this as an oppotunity to show how science has "lied" about Pluto, or were wrong, or something else. I also think it is a good opportunity for them to learn about how science can change and still remain reliable. This might not be the best example because, basically, they just changed the definition of the word planet, but I think it could drift into a discussion about changes in science, in general. Also, there seems to be this notion that science has some hidden agenda with evolution, and this example of tenitivity could be used as a segue to a discussion on how the ToE could easily change with new evidence. Anyone think this is a good idea? Links and Information or Is is Science? Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Traditionally, "planet" meant "wanderer". And pluto still wanders around the solar system. With the traditional meaning, it is still a planet.
As you indicate, the real change was to the definition of "planet", which has now been made more precise. And science does periodically refine its terminology and improve its definitions. A lot of scientific change is really change in definitions of terms and concepts. So the change of the status of pluto is really a pretty good example of scientific change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
The ability to make adjustments is a strength of science, of course.
I feel the same way about democracy, come to think of it. As for Pluto, well... it's nice to have the clarification in hand, however it shook out. For the moment the public's own tendency to anthropomorphize makes it like losing a friend--and a rather sad little underdog friend at that. But after a while everyone will realize Pluto hasn't gone anywhere. And I know we're in for some exciting discoveries about KBOs. These new definitions are really the first step in a remodeling of our entire picture of the solar system. For the next couple of years, though, some astronomers are going to get some serious hate mail from third graders. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
it's an arbitrary definition anyways.
but pluto's not on the ecliptic plane, and its orbit intersects another orbit. it's not part of the traditional planetary system, kind of an odd man out. it's much more like an object in the kuiper belt (consider it spends most of its time there). the only thing is that it's large and round. so now that we have a few more large round objects in the kuiper belt... we either demote pluto, or include 4 or 5 other planets. pluto was probably originally a moon anyways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I thought maybe we would discuss along the lines of facts and tenitivity. For example, in grade school we memorized the nine planets. It was taught as fact. Now we've changed it and what I was taught is now false.
Some things about evolution are spoken of as fact but if we changed a definition {species}, or found new info, all the arguing here about some fact could suddenly be false, although now they are spoken of as fact. I thought this would be something that creationists would have a problem with and I thought they might chime in with their misconceptions and we could explain to them how and why science works this way. Maybe, then, they could drop the whole thing about some hidden agenda in science, or some conspiracy, to thwart theism or the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Now we've changed it and what I was taught is now false.
This gets into the subtle question of whether TRUE and FALSE are applied the syntax (the string of words), or to semantics (what that string of words mean). As applied to syntax, what you were taught is now false. As applied to semantics, what you were taught is still true, but the same string of words no longer means what it did at that time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5191 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Pluto’s status as a ”planet’ always a bit dubious, due to it’s size and weirdness of it’s orbit?
Either way this is just a good example of refining classifications. To start with all planets that we knew about were just planets. (ok celestial bodies and assigned to gods) but then as knowledge increased we realised that the big ones were not solid but huge balls of gas. In the advent of this they were renamed ”Gas Giants’. Fair enough, no one complained much about that. Pluto got discovered and was called a ”planet’ (despite its weirdness) and then there were nine. So now we have discovered more objects that are Pluto-esque but don’t behave as planets (pluto’s ”moon’ being one) what are we to do? Call all these new un-planet like objects planets, or give them and Pluto a new designation of ”Dwarf Planet’? This group doesn’t fit the definition of planet and thus deserves their own classification. As Pluto is more like them than any of the other planets it makes more sense to also move it to the new classification. In a very real sense this makes not one jot of a difference, as re-classifying an object doesn’t alter the object in any way shape or form, it’s still out there doing what it does, just it now goes to a different school and has a different set of classmates. I guess it is those people who tend to operate on Binary Logic (wrong or right, no grey) who have a problem with this aspect of science, as they take the current state of scientific knowledge as given fact when all science is stating is “this is what we currently think . ” So when Science turns round and goes “oops, that should be in this group, not that one” those of a BL mindset go “YOU LIED to us! Therefore nothing you say can be trusted. Science is wrong, and if science is wrong . .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Who on earth calls something a Dwarf Planet on the one hand and insists that a Dwarf Planet is not a planet on the other hand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4522 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
its called ToE because its a Theroy .. its the best scientists can do with the current understanding of the evidence , and the current technology.. it is open to change , reinterpritation and additions and deletions.. thats how science works .
Pluto was discovered by looking for a object that was affecting Neptune orbit , at the time early 1900's it was a major echivment to find the object give the avaiible technology ... advances in technology have show Pulto is less massive than first measured , it has a odd orbit , its make up is more asteroid like , and that there are many other Pluto-like objects out there which are clearly different from Planets ... much of the new info comes from hubble the space based telescope .. compare to the 1900's technology to see the advancement thus science has done what it always does , taken the new data and looked at reality of the situatiion and updated its view . this is how science works ... ( ok i do agree dwarf palnet is a naff term , manyb better ones where offered ) Edited by Admin, : effecting => affecting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5549 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
arachnophilia writes:
All definitions are arbitrary. The question is how useful are they?
it's an arbitrary definition anyways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Pluto's status affects other objects
Getting to be fairly far reaching ... ... or is that far fetched we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
( ok i do agree dwarf palnet is a naff term , manyb better ones where offered ) I kind of liked planette except for the association of feminine with diminuative ... one must be PC about these things eh? (do not respond this is a joke) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
someone unclear on the concept of clarity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
No, what you were taught is not 'false'. it is obsolete. Therein lies the difference.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024