Proving that Links Exist

[Ophiolite]

Including what academia presents as fact?

Such as Pluto being our ninth planet?

When you don't understand the function of classification systems it is best not to comment on their consequences. It does you no favours and leaves the classification system unaffected.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you don't understand the function of classification systems it is best not to comment on their consequences. It does you no favours and leaves the classification system unaffected.

Well I'm sure your "unaffected classification system" even had you believing Pluto was our ninth planet.

That is, up until your classification system said it wasn't.

By way of a rigged vote.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well I'm sure your "unaffected classification system" even had you believing Pluto was our ninth planet.

That is, up until your classification system said it wasn't.

By way of a rigged vote.

You should be aware that Pluto continues on being Pluto, regardless of what we choose to call it. Since we have become aware of many Pluto-like objects in orbit around the Sun, some of them larger than Pluto, we can either greatly increase the number of planets, or we can further divide objects massive enough to be formed into spheres into rocky planets, gas giants, and dwarf planets. Seems sensible to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should be aware that Pluto continues on being Pluto,

I'm well aware of that.

Despite what they say about Pluto on paper, Pluto is not going to change one single atom of its structure to accommodate any designation scientists give it.

Same for humans.

Call them what you will on paper (apes, mammals, Mangani), not one single atom is going to cater to it.

Science can take a long hike up a short volcano and dive right in.

Head first.

... regardless of what we choose to call it.

Correct.

Mother Nature does what God tells her to do.

Not some shrewdness of scientists.

Since we have become aware of many Pluto-like objects in orbit around the Sun, some of them larger than Pluto, we can either greatly increase the number of planets,

Like they did the Periodic Table of the Elements, which was no problem for scientists?

... or we can further divide objects massive enough to be formed into spheres into rocky planets, gas giants, and dwarf planets.

Whatever floats your boat.

Seems sensible to me.

If it was so sensible, why the rigged vote?

 

[The Barbarian]

Since we have become aware of many Pluto-like objects in orbit around the Sun, some of them larger than Pluto, we can either greatly increase the number of planets, or we can further divide objects massive enough to be formed into spheres into rocky planets, gas giants, and dwarf planets.

Like they did the Periodic Table of the Elements, which was no problem for scientists?

Given the function of the periodic table, not surprising. But it's a non-issue. Even if they had added some elements as "transition metals" or "noble gases", that wouldn't have changed things. Oh wait, they did. Kinda like dwarf planets. How about that?

 

[dlamberth]

Mother Nature does what God tells her to do.

Not some shrewdness of scientists.

Are you basically arguing that the designation of Pluto as a planet is God's doing? And that scientist are messing around with that in a harmful way?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you basically arguing that the designation of Pluto as a planet is God's doing?

In my opinion, yes.

And that scientist are messing around with that in a harmful way?

Yes ... and in an illegitimate way.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well I'm sure your "unaffected classification system" even had you believing Pluto was our ninth planet.

That is, up until your classification system said it wasn't.

By way of a rigged vote.

That is just confirmation that you do not understand the function of a classification system. Classification systems provide a more convenient way of discussing "things". They help us to grasp the character, relationships and history of "things".

As our understanding of character, relationshops and history of certain "things" grows it is appropriate to modify the classification. To do otherwise would diminish the value of the classification system and would thus be a foolish inaction.

Raising petulant objections to such changes because you are uncomfortable with change, or because you mistakenly think it is a weakness in science that you can attack, is an exercise that offers no benefits outside of such comfort as it may bring to you personally.

As I said, the classification system is unaffected by your irrelevant objections.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you basically arguing that the designation of Pluto as a planet is God's doing? And that scientist are messing around with that in a harmful way?

In my opinion, yes.

I had no idea that God was Greek. Learn something new, every day.

 

[AV1611VET]

Raising petulant objections to such changes because you are uncomfortable with change, or because you mistakenly think it is a weakness in science that you can attack, is an exercise that offers no benefits outside of such comfort as it may bring to you personally.

What about raising petulant objections about rigging votes?

You can think I'm calling it a weakness in science, if you want to; but I don't believe I ever called it that.

I called it what it is: a rigged vote.

Just ask sjastro.

 

[AV1611VET]

I had no idea that God was Greek.

Do you know the difference between "nine" and "Pluto"?

Learn something new, every day.

Then use it.

 

[Ophiolite]

What about raising petulant objections about rigging votes?

You can think I'm calling it a weakness in science, if you want to; but I don't believe I ever called it that.

I called it what it is: a rigged vote.

Just ask sjastro.

1. Your objection to the vote lies in the outcome of the vote, not in the way it was conducted. If the vote had been for Pluto remaining a planet a deep silence would have emanated from your corner. That's why I describe your reaction as petulant.
2. I specifically gave two possible explanations (either/or) for your approach. I made no conclusion either way. And, of course, there may be other possible explanations. Moreover, while you may never have called it that you have repeatedly cited the vote as a "bad thing". As far as I know "bad things" in a context like this are generally considered to be weaknesses.
3. I don't think the solution was an ideal one. A more nuanced, yet more quantitative solution would have been better. It can always be revisted - and will be. In the meantime the inconsistencies present in the current defintions can inform discussions and even inspire particular directions of research.
4. I see you chose not to address the elephant in the room - you don't understand, or certainly do not acknowledge, the functions of classification systems. Those functions remove the ground from under your objections.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Your objection to the vote lies in the outcome of the vote, not in the way it was conducted. If the vote had been for Pluto remaining a planet a deep silence would have emanated from your corner. That's why I describe your reaction as petulant.

You don't know me very well, do you?

Had that vote been rigged to keep Pluto status quo, I'd have been all over them for the same reason: rigged.

2. Moreover, while you may never have called it that you have repeatedly cited the vote as a "bad thing".

Too bad you don't see it as a "bad thing" either.

Birds of a feather, I guess.

3. I don't think the solution was an ideal one.

Neither do Alan Stern, et alii.

Not to mention:

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy".

The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto and a longtime resident of that state, that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day.

The Illinois Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009 on the basis that Tombaugh was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU."

Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.

In 2006, in its 17th annual words-of-the-year vote, the American Dialect Society voted plutoed as the word of the year. To "pluto" is to "demote or devalue someone or something".

SOURCE

4. I see you chose not to address the elephant in the room - you don't understand, or certainly do not acknowledge, the functions of classification systems. Those functions remove the ground from under your objections.

QV also:

The Pluto Issue

 

[Ophiolite]

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed.

When it comes to public reactions to specialist classification systems the public can take a hike.

And that closes the matter. Goose, meet gander.

 

[AV1611VET]

When it comes to public reactions to specialist classification systems the public can take a hike.

Does that include Alan Stern?

Can he take a hike too?

 

[dlamberth]

In my opinion, yes.

What I'm not understanding, maybe you can clear things up, is that the designation of anything in the cosmos is a human construct. On the other hand, your position from what I'm understanding, is that the designation of Pluto as a planet is God's doing. How does that work?

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you know the difference between "nine" and "Pluto"?

Neither of those is Greek. But I don't think that God is Latin or Germanic either.

But now you know. Learn something new, every day. BTW, Pluto is more like a comet than what we normally call planets:

Pluto May Be a Giant Comet, According to New Research​

Pluto 'May Be a Giant Comet'

Scientists have a new theory, called the cosmochemical model of Pluto formation.

www.newsweek.com

 

[The Barbarian]

What I'm not understanding, maybe you can things clear up, is that the designation of anything in the cosmos is a human construct. On the other hand, your position from what I'm understanding, is that the designation of Pluto as a planet is God's doing. How does that work?

When God created the first elementary school science book in the early 1900s, He put Pluto in there with the Planets. Which brings up the question what Pluto was before God put it in the textbook as a planet. WFTH-I

 

[Ophiolite]

Does that include Alan Stern?

Can he take a hike too?

Is Alan Stern a member of the public? No.

Does Alan Stern have a conflict of interest in regard to Pluto's classification? Yes.

Why are you disregarding that conflict of interest?

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, Pluto is more like a comet than what we normally call planets:

Whatever.

It is what it is.

Pluto May Be a Giant Comet, According to New Research

I don't think anyone really knows what it is now.

Until they figure it out for sure, I'll just consider it a planet.