Comment by Planktonne
10 hours ago
The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IAU definition) should be used in non-astronomical contexts.
Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. An IAU classification shouldn't be used to try and retroactively change that, because the IAU does not have control over history and culture. It's a fun fact (did you know that Pluto is not classified as a planet by astronomers?) not a diktat.
Similarly, a banana is 'officially' a berry, which means that it is classified as a berry by botanists. This does not mean it is considered a berry in any other contexts. If you told someone you had made a berry crumble and it was filled with bananas, you would look strange. We have countless examples of this (often focused around food): a tomato does not belong in a fruit salad no matter what botanists say.
Different terms are used with different specificity in different settings. Language and culture and [older disciplines] are not governed by the rules of [newer disciplines or bodies]. If people with 'I love space' t-shirts would stop "um actually"-ing, no one would have a problem.
> Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet.
A very brief period of history. Give it 50 years and the number of people who will call it a planet will be close to 0.
Let's not overstate Pluto's significance in culture. People call it a planet only because that's what they were taught in school. Not because of other (very few) cultural references. As it has been dropped from the curriculum, so shall it be dropped from people's minds.
Compared to the other planets it's rarely referred to in stories, etc. It has very little significance in today's culture beyond the fact that it was taught in school.
That's not the case for something like Jupiter. If they decided tomorrow that gas giants are no longer planets, it will remain in arts and culture. Pluto? Highly unlikely.
I don't think my kid knows about Pluto. That doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Peanuts, cashews, almonds, walnuts, pecans, Brazil nuts and pistachios are culinary nuts but NOT botanical nuts.
Botanical berries: Bananas, tomatoes, grapes, cucumbers, eggplants, avocados and peppers, but NOT strawberries, raspberries, blackberries or mulberries.
Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words.
"Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words."
If they could do it all over again probably most of them would. The sciences all grew organically too. Some of these things like "berries" aren't even just the product of one reclassification, they're the product of several over the course of decades or centuries, which is how they get so common-sense silly over time.
We had the perfect opportunity to introduce new names when the IAU created the "dwarf planet" classification in 2006. That was literally the perfect time to do it all over.
> Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words.
Doesn't really matter. The public would end up taking science words for their own purposes to sound legitimate. Look at how "quantum" and "energy" is used in alternative medicine.
They really are the “epicenter” of the problem
Well, the thing is, nobody got told, out of nowhere, that the “honorable strawberries” were now called simply “mildly honored straw,” because a committee of so-called experts had expressed their will, and that now everybody had to say “mildly honored straw” instead of “honorable strawberries,” or else they would be *incorrect*, because the science league said so.
The word “planet” signifying a certain reverence, and the fact that a scientific body was now policing everyday language — for the apparently petty reason that we should not honor Pluto as we once did — it was quite a misstep for how people in the public might view science going forward. Unless, perhaps, the idea was to make people more skeptical of scientific results and statements.
The alternative was to announce "we now have 10 more planets, and there are probably a bunch more, and we'll probably never really get a definitive number".
That would also have had an impact on the public view of science. Perhaps not as bad, but it would have had an impact.
14 replies →
> The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance
This is the actual problem everywhere.
I wonder how happy each group would be by this solution. Planet as a scientific and non-scientific usage.
Conclusively, science class would not teach Pluto as a planet (it should after all stick to the science) and English class will discuss the cultural impact of planet Pluto! Maybe write poems about the importance and impact of 9 word mnemonics? Sounds fun.
My headcanon is that people would hate it so so much! I can't wait to see that as a distant observer.
This would be a really good discussion topic in schools.
People need to understand the dynamic between science and society, because that is an important part of how the world works today.
Pluto is an exemplar.
And also, the value of culture. It might not be a scientific result, but it still shapes our experience of the world. Pluto is beloved.
Pluto makes for a great lesson about science itself. Our view of the universe we live in changes over time as we get more information about it. Children should learn to expect that and to understand that it isn't a bad thing, or a flaw with science, but a vital part of the process and when it happens things are working as intended. That means that today Pluto isn't a planet, even though for a small time it used to be considered one, because we learned more about the bodies in our solar system and it no longer made sense to call Pluto a planet. We can explain to children why it shows up in our history, and how we've moved on.
It honestly doesn't have to be a bunch of drama. The problem will pretty much go away after the current generation who grew up learning about Pluto as a planet dies off and gets replaced by a generation who always knew that there were only 8 planets in our solar system. Hopefully they'll also be better prepared to accept changes that come from better understanding.
7 replies →
Which would make the article's subjects "weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that" a non-astronomical definition be used in an astronomical context.
While reading your comment it occurred to me that virtually all reporting on (or talking about) science involves applying it to an unsuitable context. Schrödinger's cat is probably the most prolific example of this.
Scientists are constantly trying to encroach on areas that aren’t the domain of science in an attempt to expand their power, so this confusion is unavoidable and indeed deliberate.
You’ve explained something very well that I hope certain groups of people will try to internalize.
The term "fish" is a case in point. Traditionally, the term means a creature which lives underwater, which would include whales and dolphins, and indeed used to, despite being mammals.
It gets worse. Whales and dolphins are more closely related to certain fish than those fish are related to some other fish. (As are we by the way.) There are also some fish, such as lungfish or certain eels which can spend more time out of water than whales and dolphins can. Some fish can even breathe air, which undermines another assumption about whales etc.
For some reason, I rarely hear fewer people objecting to jellyfish or shellfish being referred to as fish, even though these are more distantly related to fish than mammals are.
So biologically, the term "fish" doesn't make much sense.
Your point is fishy. But if the IAU definition changes to "a body orbiting a star", we can rename them to "paparazzi".
My understanding was part of the definition was changed thereby recategorizing Pluto?