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

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.

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.

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.