I was looking for links this morning about the planethood controversy and, in the process, found some interesting quotes from Michael Brown, the discoverer of 2003 UB313 and the leading voice to have it awarded planetary status...

In October, 2002, after his discovery of Quaoar (the first KBO to get serious consideration as the 10th planet), Brown said this:

In March, 2004, after his co-discovery of Sedna (the next KBO to get serious consideration), Brown said this:

But with the discovery of 2003 UB313, now Brown says:

It seems to me that, when Brown is thinking scientifically (his words), that Pluto and other KBOs should NOT be planets. But when he is talking about what makes the world comfortable, then, what the hell, Pluto and anything bigger can be a planet.

To me, Michael Brown makes as strong of a case for Pluto being officially demoted as anyone else. Do we want the IAU to make decisions scientifically, or based on cultural whims?

Michael Brown's case seems to be summed up in his "I want my planets to be special" line. I don't see that being any less whimsical than "Pluto's a planet 'cause we like it that way". Frankly, wouldn't it be more scientific to classify an object based on its properties, and not the properties of its neighbours?

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.

Part of the problem is figuring out what is scientific and what is not. Ken G has discussed this with me in another thread, and there is not universal agreement.

Richard Feynman, in one of his books, complains about the loose way that the word "science" is thrown around in theories of education--he mentions that many such theories have no scientific support at all, even though their proponents say that they do. It's not very different than today's debate about science and intelligent design.

Classification may aid science, but I see little support for claiming one scheme is scientific and the other not.