Slashdot Mirror
Pluto Decision Meets with Frustration
fuzzybunny writes "The BBC reports that the IAU's controversial Prague vote on demoting Pluto from planet status was irregular. 'There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon.'" On a less serious note, lx writes "Nonplussed by Pluto's recent downgrade from Planet Status, Fox News's own John Gibson does an incredible Stephen Colbert impersonation to correct the 'revisionist history' of the IAU's decision. Exemplifying 'truthiness,' from the article: 'Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?' "
Whether Pluto is or is not considered a planet is not as important to me as the integrity of high-level guidance among senior scientists. When the arguments for or against a decision depend on popular vote rather than rational consensus, scientists reduce themselves to the level of lawyers. When the objectivity of scientific thought is bypassed by special interest groups and politics, science is no longer Science. This whole process has been a shameful exhibition of politics.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I usually don't comment much, but when a nationally-recognized news anchor makes stupid comments, I feel obliged.
He says, "All of a sudden Ringo isn't a Beatle? All of a sudden somebody changes a standard and Curly isn't a stooge, or Zeppo isn't a Marx, or Ari isn't one of the "Entourage"? Actually I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly."
My god. Yeah, because Ringo Starr's status as a Beatle hinges on statistics and his orbital ellipse, just like Pluto's. Look out for that 'Two Stooges' DVD also. John Gibson sounds like a prick -- if our understanding of the universe evolved John Gibson's way, we might still be afraid to fall off the edge of the world, or the Sun might still rotate around the Earth. The changing of 'standards' is inevitable as a better understanding of the universe becomes available. The more technologically advanced we become, you can bet laws, theories, and yes, even TEXTBOOK PRINT may become outdated.
(Note: this rant directed toward John Gibson's stupid 'rebuttal,' regardless of the IAU decision whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not.
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
I'll tell you why.
Ever look at the price tag on a Textbook?, those things are expensive.
To pay for the textbook publishers political action committee.
Think of the money that will need to be spent by schools for new science textbooks; just after they got done replacing them to give equal space to 'Intelligent Design'.
You might think it's unimportant, but when the federally mandated standardised test asks how many planets are in the Solar System...
Gibson would've said the converse when they added Pluto:
"I grew up with eight planets. Now some know-nothing radicle tells me there are nine? This 'planet' Pluto is nothing but a rock of ice in space."
Just like how we wouldn't term the rocks in planet rings moons, even though, to my knowledge, there's no definition in terms of size.
t ellites )
Although it's interesting that we don't seem to have a proper definition of "moon" other than being a natural satellite of a larger object. In fact, the same problem is occurring as more and more "moons" are discovered - for example, 45 of Jupiter's 63 moons was discovered since 2000, and includes "moons" only 1 km across! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter's_natural_sa
I wonder if they are going to redefine "moon" at some point and demote many of these moons? If not, I wonder why it's acceptable to have lots of tiny moons, but not planets?