Geologists Angry About New 'Pluton' Definition

An anonymous reader writes "According to a story over at Nature, some geologists are ticked off at the International Astronomical Union for using the word 'pluton' to describe a round object orbiting the sun with a period more than 200 years. A pluton, it seems, is a common type of rock formation that exists in most Geology 101 curricula. IAU head Owen Gingerich is quoted as saying that he was only peripherally aware of the definition, and because it didn't show up on MS Word's spell check, he didn't think it was that important."

Comments

Done before...

[fatbuddha]

A word with more than one meaning? The horror!

1st Time

[Helios1182]

This is far from the first time that a term has been overloaded. It happens all the time across fields, sometimes even within (I'm looking at you computer science).

Context

[talkingpaperclip]

Context should be sufficient to tell what kind of 'pluton' is being discussed. It's not like plutons pluton through the atmosphere and become plutons all the time.

Seriously though, the word 'nucleus' has several different definitions in different branches of science, and I've never had problems with it.

Perhaps next time

[x3nos]

because it didn't show up on MS Word's spell check, he didn't think it was that important.

Well next time, maybe the IAU should check Wikipedia just to be sure. There is some really good info there. . .

Way to go Owen.

I'm sort of embarrased

[Tycho]

I have a bachelor's degree in Geology and this never crossed my mind before, I'm sort of embarrased that this never never happened. Now that someone has mentioned that "pluton" refers to both an intrusive igneous body and a type of planet, I think that the IAU was pretty stupid. Then again IIRC, in Geology "pluton" may be deprecated because I don't recall too many of my professors using it. The perferred word, in Geology, may be "intrusion", but what do I know?

Re:i just wrote an article about this at kuro5hin.

[MyLongNickName]

1. anything round with an atmosphere is a planet. in other words titan is a "planet of saturn"
2. anything round without an atmosphere is a moon. in other words mercury is a "moon of the sun"

Even our moon has an atmosphere. Is it really a planet?

If you set an arbitrary "value" for minimum atmosphere, what do you do with planet/moons that fluctuate with their orbit? Do they change categories when they warm up and get more of an atmosphere, and then return to being a moon when they freeze again?

Re:Wow, that's an interesting take...

[TubeSteak]

The question they seem to failed to examine, is whether or not a word is not significant enough in the collective consciousness of society [to be included in MS Word spell check] does that mean it is fair game for assignment of new meaning?

The answer is "No, it is not fair game".

MS Word's default dictionary is hunky dory for most people, BUT the second you want to start using technical terms, the default dictionary is worthless.

Example: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA010 483191033.aspx
"If you find it frustrating that the default Microsoft Word dictionary doesn't recognize the medical terms you use every day, there's a simple way to make the spelling checker work for your specific needs. Just customize your Word dictionary so that the default dictionary points to Stedman's Medical Dictionary or another medical terms list that you want to use."

Even abridged dictionaries are full of words that are virtually unused in our society

And even un-abridged dictionaries will not include technical or specialized terminology that is limited to a single field. That's why you can buy subject specific dictionaries: legal, medical, niological, chemical, etc etc etc

Re:Wow, that's an interesting take...

[letxa2000]

It's silly anyway. If something else in Geology were to be called a Pluton I can understand why there could be confusion. But if a Geologist says, "Take a look at that pluton over there", there's a very low probability that people will think he's talking about an astronomical object with an orbital period of more than 200 years. Likewise, if an astronomer references a pluton, there's a small probability he's talking about a rock formation.

So why in the world are geologists upset? Just been awhile since they had a rumble with astronomers, or...?

Re:Wow, that's an interesting take...

[Static11]

Angstrom, Joule, Candella.

They don't have "significant meaning in popular culture" either, but you would not go around redefining those words, would you?

Only in everyone's favourite 'most important' country, would Joule be classified as not having significant meaning in poular culture. Travel to the outside world, where people use decimal measurement systems, and you'll see kilojoules in the nutritional information of everything in your supermarket.

Defeat Snatched from the Jaws of Victory

[mkcmkc]

So, if I understand this correctly, a whole gaggle of astronomers have spent months (at least) pondering what is essentially a religious question anyway--Is Pluto a planet?--a question that could have been resolved in either direction with no real effect--and they still managed to screw it up.

Now that's talent!

Missing the forest through the trees

[frdmfghtr]

I think a very important point is being missed here...

Owen Gingerich, an astronomer at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and chair of the IAU committee that created the definition, says that they were aware of its usage amongst geologists, but unaware of its importance to the field. "Since the term is not in the MS Word or the WordPerfect spell checkers, we thought it was not that common," Gingerich wrote in an e-mail to news@nature.com. The geologic definition of the word does appear in common dictionaries, including the Oxford English.

Gingerich is head of the IAU. He's supposed to be pretty damned smart.

He used a word processor SPELL CHECK dictionary as the authority to determine the existence of a scientific/technical term.

A SPELL CHECK dictionary. Used as the authority to determine the exisatence of a scientific term.

The head of the International Astronomic Union. Spell check dictionary. Existence of a scientific term.

Is anybody home??

He may as well have done no research into the background of the term. He would have looked less stupid that way. Sloppy and careless maybe, but not stupid.

And how is it he got to this position and how long will he be allowed to remain? Maybe he was elected so he wouldn't hurt himself running with scissors.