pudge's Journal: Pluto

OK, seriously now, since when is science or language (except in France) determined by voting?

A legitimate case can be made that Pluto is not properly called a planet, but despite what the many news reports I've seen have said, Pluto is not now "officially" not-a-planet. There's nothing "official" about it. The International Astronomical Union has no authority. The International Star Registry has as much authority as the IAU does, and dammit, if they decide, for a $1,000 fee, to call the third star to the left of Orion's belt "Pudgimus Prime," then that's just as bloody official as anything the IAU says.

The IAU is a bunch of nice people who do good and important work. But they have no actual authority to name anything, let alone to classify anything, any more than anyone else has. That's not to say we should ignore them; far from it. That we can look to this group of scientists for a common set of words -- like "planet" and "Pluto" -- is extremely useful. But it's not "official." It's not law. It's just one group of people. A really smart and influential group, but that doesn't make them "official."

We do not have to go in and change all the textbooks in all the schools, we don't have to change our dioramas and mnemonic devices, we don't have to change ... well, anything. If you want to keep calling it a planet, feel free to do so, as long as it's understood you're not using the same definition the IAU is using.

Well?

[sr180]

Who does get to decide the definition of the word planet then?

Re:

[pudge]

The same people who get to decide the meaning of the words "sport" and "souffle".

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[pudge]

Ha. :-) But they have just as much actual authority to make up a new definition for the rest of us.

Re:

[nocomment]

Actually the ancients used the term planet to mean "an object that moves in the sky". They'd use that term to describe objects that didn't have a fixed moving position such as stars. I suspect that the IAU is hoping this will stick because they will get power from it. I also think it will work.

Plenty of authority

[The Fun Guy]

In the case of a scientific nomenclature dispute, the job falls to the leading scientific societies to review the situation, make a recommendation, and get a peer-review on the proposed solution. They never do this unless the scientists in the field get fed up with a murky, inconsistent, confusing nomenclature and want to get some clarity. The Pluto question was taking up so much time that astronomers wanted to get a ruling, to settle the argument so they could go on to more productive matters.

In the case o

Re:

[pudge]

I said they didn't have any real authority, you said they did, but then you didn't say anything that disagreed with me. I'm confused!

Re:

[The Fun Guy]

If you take "real" authority to mean "coercive", as in, "we can make you do this", then, no, they don't have any real authority. However, the officers of IAU, like the officers of all scientific societies, are experienced, respected scientists, and they were elected to be the leaders of the organization and the field of science that it serves. There would have to be a pretty good reason for the bulk of the scientists in the field to say, "OK, we elected you because we trust your judgement as scientists, but

Re:

[pudge]

If you take "real" authority to mean "coercive", as in, "we can make you do this", then, no, they don't have any real authority.

No. I thought the context was pretty clear: what I mean is that any action they take, any definition they come up with, is not "official" in any way, shape, or form (except inside the IAU itself, an organization that, probably, none of us belong to). It's not about coercion, necessarily (though, as in France's case, it could be).

However, the officers of IAU, like the officers of

Re:

[The Fun Guy]

If the general public got to make an informed choice, I've no doubt it would take the latter.

The general public doesn't need to choose, since it does not suffer when language is ambiguous. Fields of science do suffer where their terminology is inconsistent, or ill defined. You end up having all sorts of footnotes, qualifications and exceptions to what would otherwise be an orderly framework within which to classify and share information.

In science, you need some sort of scientific evidence; not so in langua

Re:

[pudge]

The general public doesn't need to choose

Actually, it does. Whenever someone in the general public uses the word "planet" in relation to Pluto (either including it or excluding it), that person will be making a choice of which definition to use. And these cumulative individual choices will result in the actual definition, should any consensus be reached, but even if no consensus is reached, everyone will continue to make choices regarding the definition.

People who want to continue to call Pluto a planet w

Re:

[Jhon]

People who want to continue to call Pluto a planet will be in the same group of people who refer to potatoes as "roots"

Well... sweet potatoes are roots...

That said, you provide a poor analogy. It states the user of a word as a lack of knowledge -- while this might be true in the examples you gave, it wouldn't be accurate to project that on someone who calls Pluto a planet. They would lack an acceptance of the IAU designations. At least the ones who choose to continue to call Pluto a planet -- as oppose

Re:

[The Fun Guy]

Well... sweet potatoes are roots...

And the technical distinction between roots and tubers is lost on 99% of the public, because it has no relevance for how they use the information. In most people's eyes, a potato is a potato, and the common parlance is perfectly adequate for what they are using the language for. So, if they want to call Pluto a planet, the overwhelming odds are that they will be understood, even though they are technically incorrect.

Why is this not just a matter of personal preference, or

Re:

[pudge]

So, if they want to call Pluto a planet, the overwhelming odds are that they will be understood, even though they are technically incorrect.

Again, though, they are not technically incorrect.

Because the word "planet", when applied as a technical definition, has a specific meaning, which the IAU proposed and the membership of the IAU adopted.

And they are free to do that. However, they have no authority to require that the rest of us adopt their new meaning for the word "planet."

Just because the IAU says the

Re:

[The Fun Guy]

the IAU cannot claim theirs is the correct one, because that is not how language works

But it is how science works. Technical terms are defined by technical authorities. You might as well say that you don't agree with the modern, more precise definition of a meter [nist.gov], and continue to refer to a meter using the old "distance around the earth" definition. You might feel good about yourself at having stuck it to the man, and you might even be close enough for non-technical discussions and applications, but you wou

Re:

[pudge]

But it is how science works.

Actually, no, it is not.

Technical terms are defined by technical authorities.

That is begging the question, since these people are not authorities, in the sense of having any authority or ability to make up definitions for everyone else. Their authority begins and ends with their own membership. This is a simple fact, why are you arguing against it?

Everyone -- including both scientists and the general public -- are free to accept or reject what the IAU says.

We often do accept wh

Re:

[Jhon]

Just because the IAU says the technical definition has changed does not make it so

Had your statement read: "Just because the IAU says THEIR technical definition has changed does not make it so" -- you would be incorrect.

Your statement as is, however is accurate.

Words and their definitions are only useful when the people using them to communicate have an agreement on meaning. If the IAU wants to modify technical terms to use within their ranks, so be it. If Bob and Mary from Idaho Falls agree to call

Re:

[pudge]

Had your statement read: "Just because the IAU says THEIR technical definition has changed does not make it so" -- you would be incorrect.

Right. I fully support the IAU's ability -- and its exercise thereof -- to determine such definitions. I am not against them changing their definition.

I am merely against the rest of us accepting the definition, even if we don't like it, just because they want us to. If we collectively decide as a society that we like the definition of planet that includes Pluto, then

Re:

[jdavidb]

And they are free to do that. However, they have no authority to require that the rest of us adopt their new meaning for the word "planet."

Am I the only one who sees how this reasoning applies to the gay marriage issue? :)

Because it's not science

[nandorman]

Pudge, the problem you're seeing, perhaps, is that the definition of "planet" is not a scientific matter, but rather one of nomenclature; you're allowed to vote on that. There wouldn't be a vote on whether gravity exists, but there could be about what we call it.

As for who gets to decide: those who have some sort of control over it: biological taxonimists have determined that dogs and wolves belong to different species because they got together and decided it. Quarks are called quarks (as opposed to lep

Re:

[pudge]

Pudge, the problem you're seeing, perhaps, is that the definition of "planet" is not a scientific matter, but rather one of nomenclature

That's why I said this was voting on language. My whole journal entry was looking at it from this perspective.

you're allowed to vote on that

But no, that's not how language works, anymore than it is how science works. In both cases, they evolve by general consensus and usage. No one votes, no one makes mandates, there is no authority apart from the general consensus. It'

I wouldn't go THAT far...

[FortKnox]

The International Star Registry has as much authority as the IAU does
Now, I agree that it doesn't have that much authority, but we are talking about a group of respected scientists vs a buncha suits trying to swindle money out of your pocket.
Odds are, scientists and writers that do write the text books will follow the agreements of the scientists and not by the schiesters...

Re:

[pudge]

Now, I agree that it doesn't have that much authority, but we are talking about a group of respected scientists vs a buncha suits trying to swindle money out of your pocket. Odds are, scientists and writers that do write the text books will follow the agreements of the scientists and not by the schiesters...

Right, so you are not at all disagreeing with me.

Re:

[FortKnox]

No, I'm not. I just didn't like the comparison, that's all ;)
I just have a thing against the international star registry...

Re:

[pudge]

No, I'm not. I just didn't like the comparison, that's all ;)
I just have a thing against the international star registry...

Exactly. That's why I used them as the example, because they have just as much authority to mandate the official names of things, even though we don't respect them at all.

Four digit jack-booted thugs

[GMontag]

You four digit users just make rules to keep the rest of us from having fun!

Your generation is the cause of all of our problems . . . LOL

i don't care about the IAU.

[Timex]

When I first heard the story, I missed part of it. I had this vision of Pluto suddenly disappearing from the sky... One moment it's there, then *POOF!* it's gone. Later on, when I heard the whole story, I thought, "Well. Is that all? A bunch of scientists get all full of themselves and decide to mess with everyone by saying, 'Hah! You FOOL! You thought Pluto was a PLANET! Hah! Everything you know is wrong! We decided it isn't one after all!'? I don't buy it."

They're dolts. Every one of 'em. Plu