Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pluto's planet status
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 39 (343298)
08-25-2006 11:26 AM


So, I'm sure most of us have heard that they demoted Pluto from planetary status: National Geographic News about it.
I thought this could spark an interesting discussion about the tentativity of science.
I think some creationists might use this as an oppotunity to show how science has "lied" about Pluto, or were wrong, or something else. I also think it is a good opportunity for them to learn about how science can change and still remain reliable.
This might not be the best example because, basically, they just changed the definition of the word planet, but I think it could drift into a discussion about changes in science, in general. Also, there seems to be this notion that science has some hidden agenda with evolution, and this example of tenitivity could be used as a segue to a discussion on how the ToE could easily change with new evidence.
Anyone think this is a good idea?
Links and Information or Is is Science?

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 08-25-2006 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 4 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 1:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 8 by ohnhai, posted 08-25-2006 9:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 10 by ikabod, posted 08-26-2006 5:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2006 11:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 39 (343301)
08-25-2006 11:30 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 39 (343310)
08-25-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2006 11:26 AM


Traditionally, "planet" meant "wanderer". And pluto still wanders around the solar system. With the traditional meaning, it is still a planet.
As you indicate, the real change was to the definition of "planet", which has now been made more precise. And science does periodically refine its terminology and improve its definitions.
A lot of scientific change is really change in definitions of terms and concepts. So the change of the status of pluto is really a pretty good example of scientific change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 4 of 39 (343352)
08-25-2006 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2006 11:26 AM


Re: Pluto's planet status
The ability to make adjustments is a strength of science, of course.
I feel the same way about democracy, come to think of it.
As for Pluto, well... it's nice to have the clarification in hand, however it shook out. For the moment the public's own tendency to anthropomorphize makes it like losing a friend--and a rather sad little underdog friend at that. But after a while everyone will realize Pluto hasn't gone anywhere. And I know we're in for some exciting discoveries about KBOs. These new definitions are really the first step in a remodeling of our entire picture of the solar system.
For the next couple of years, though, some astronomers are going to get some serious hate mail from third graders.

Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 39 (343354)
08-25-2006 1:44 PM


it's an arbitrary definition anyways.
but pluto's not on the ecliptic plane, and its orbit intersects another orbit. it's not part of the traditional planetary system, kind of an odd man out. it's much more like an object in the kuiper belt (consider it spends most of its time there). the only thing is that it's large and round. so now that we have a few more large round objects in the kuiper belt... we either demote pluto, or include 4 or 5 other planets.
pluto was probably originally a moon anyways.


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by fallacycop, posted 08-26-2006 8:52 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2006 11:44 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 39 (343385)
08-25-2006 5:18 PM


I thought maybe we would discuss along the lines of facts and tenitivity. For example, in grade school we memorized the nine planets. It was taught as fact. Now we've changed it and what I was taught is now false.
Some things about evolution are spoken of as fact but if we changed a definition {species}, or found new info, all the arguing here about some fact could suddenly be false, although now they are spoken of as fact.
I thought this would be something that creationists would have a problem with and I thought they might chime in with their misconceptions and we could explain to them how and why science works this way. Maybe, then, they could drop the whole thing about some hidden agenda in science, or some conspiracy, to thwart theism or the bible.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 08-25-2006 5:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 15 by ramoss, posted 08-26-2006 11:33 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 7 of 39 (343396)
08-25-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2006 5:18 PM


Now we've changed it and what I was taught is now false.
This gets into the subtle question of whether TRUE and FALSE are applied the syntax (the string of words), or to semantics (what that string of words mean).
As applied to syntax, what you were taught is now false. As applied to semantics, what you were taught is still true, but the same string of words no longer means what it did at that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 5:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 8 of 39 (343438)
08-25-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2006 11:26 AM


Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Pluto’s status as a ”planet’ always a bit dubious, due to it’s size and weirdness of it’s orbit?
Either way this is just a good example of refining classifications. To start with all planets that we knew about were just planets. (ok celestial bodies and assigned to gods) but then as knowledge increased we realised that the big ones were not solid but huge balls of gas. In the advent of this they were renamed ”Gas Giants’. Fair enough, no one complained much about that.
Pluto got discovered and was called a ”planet’ (despite its weirdness) and then there were nine.
So now we have discovered more objects that are Pluto-esque but don’t behave as planets (pluto’s ”moon’ being one) what are we to do? Call all these new un-planet like objects planets, or give them and Pluto a new designation of ”Dwarf Planet’?
This group doesn’t fit the definition of planet and thus deserves their own classification. As Pluto is more like them than any of the other planets it makes more sense to also move it to the new classification.
In a very real sense this makes not one jot of a difference, as re-classifying an object doesn’t alter the object in any way shape or form, it’s still out there doing what it does, just it now goes to a different school and has a different set of classmates.
I guess it is those people who tend to operate on Binary Logic (wrong or right, no grey) who have a problem with this aspect of science, as they take the current state of scientific knowledge as given fact when all science is stating is “this is what we currently think . ” So when Science turns round and goes “oops, that should be in this group, not that one” those of a BL mindset go “YOU LIED to us! Therefore nothing you say can be trusted. Science is wrong, and if science is wrong . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 39 (343503)
08-26-2006 3:41 AM


Dodgy terminology
Who on earth calls something a Dwarf Planet on the one hand and insists that a Dwarf Planet is not a planet on the other hand?

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2006 11:25 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 17 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-26-2006 11:42 AM Modulous has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 10 of 39 (343516)
08-26-2006 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2006 11:26 AM


its called ToE because its a Theroy .. its the best scientists can do with the current understanding of the evidence , and the current technology.. it is open to change , reinterpritation and additions and deletions.. thats how science works .
Pluto was discovered by looking for a object that was affecting Neptune orbit , at the time early 1900's it was a major echivment to find the object give the avaiible technology ... advances in technology have show Pulto is less massive than first measured , it has a odd orbit , its make up is more asteroid like , and that there are many other Pluto-like objects out there which are clearly different from Planets ... much of the new info comes from hubble the space based telescope .. compare to the 1900's technology to see the advancement
thus science has done what it always does , taken the new data and looked at reality of the situatiion and updated its view .
this is how science works ...
( ok i do agree dwarf palnet is a naff term , manyb better ones where offered )
Edited by Admin, : effecting => affecting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2006 11:23 AM ikabod has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 11 of 39 (343537)
08-26-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
08-25-2006 1:44 PM


arachnophilia writes:
it's an arbitrary definition anyways.
All definitions are arbitrary. The question is how useful are they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 08-25-2006 1:44 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 39 (343558)
08-26-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2006 11:26 AM


here's an update
Pluto's status affects other objects
Getting to be fairly far reaching
...
...
or is that far fetched

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ramoss, posted 08-26-2006 11:36 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 39 (343561)
08-26-2006 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ikabod
08-26-2006 5:28 AM


( ok i do agree dwarf palnet is a naff term , manyb better ones where offered )
I kind of liked planette
except for the association of feminine with diminuative ... one must be PC about these things eh? (do not respond this is a joke)

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ikabod, posted 08-26-2006 5:28 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ikabod, posted 08-26-2006 3:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 39 (343563)
08-26-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
08-26-2006 3:41 AM


Re: Dodgy terminology
someone unclear on the concept of clarity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 08-26-2006 3:41 AM Modulous has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 15 of 39 (343564)
08-26-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2006 5:18 PM


No, what you were taught is not 'false'. it is obsolete. Therein lies the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2006 5:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024