I was reading an article on space.com today (http://space.com/scienceastronomy/06...nets_rxns.html) about what the public thought about demoting pluto.

Does anybody feel that we are taking the public's opinion on pluto too seriously? I mean, should the historical or public's perception on pluto have any bearing on whether we define it to be a planet or not?

I don't see why astronomers should feel forced to alter the definition of a planet because it has been loved by children. Honestly now, I don't want to seem black hearted or anything (I'm not) but does it really matter? It almost feels as if we're molding science to better fit history and public thought rather than pushing it forward.

Also, wouldn't removing pluto and having 8 planets be alot more economical than keeping pluto and adding hundreds? I feel as if people seem alot more surprised by adding 3 and calling them "plutons" rather than just removing pluto all together.

I don't believe we're moulding science to better fit history and public thought by altering the definition of the word Planet. As we make scientific and technological advancements it seems inevitable we will discover far more of these objects orbiting further out than that of Pluto, having a definition we can apply at the very least allows the astronomical community to either distinguish or deny Planethood. This is of course very important and if it should increase the number of orbiting 'round' bodies in the Solar System what's the problem. I don't feel public opinion is being taken too seriously, after all will the average person really mind how many icy planets there are, its not like they're going to be interested in taking a vacation there.

Debate is good on the subject, so is the public voicing their opinions, but lets just get some perspective, it is only a definition.

Where do you get your money from? You don't seriously think that Joe Public really gives a darn about your pet project of trying to see how big the Universe is, what Dark Matter is and where did you put it or any of that other junk, do you?

I was once in a National Park on a cave tour and the guide just went on and on about how having tours in her cave was killing it and that we should just stop letting the public in and let only the serious researchers in. After about 30 minutes of this I asked her what she thought she'd have if they didn't offer tours in this cave at 50 bucks a family. After thirty seconds I told her she'd have a hole in the ground that NOBODY would be interested in paying her to explore, now get on with the tour.

Do we need to capture the public imagination? Need I remind you what happened to the moon shots after we lost the publics attention? If you can show the folks that there is a wonderous place out there and get them to come along I'm all for it. We've tried for the last 10-20 years to convince them that they're going to die from an asteroid impact and most of them just giggle and ask if it'll be using hair gel or shoe bombs.

Yes and no. Public opinion is important. Astronomers are not gods with authority to decide what the public should think by decree. On the other hand, the public often lets scientists decide what the public should think by decree.

I'm all for good science and a good scientific definition, which is what I think the primary IAU proposal is. Those people who want to limit it to 8 are not interested in science, they are interested in aesthetics and art, their version of an intelligent design. The only public opinion the Big Eighters are interested in is their opinion that the public is too stupid to comprehend anything more than 8 planets.

I'm of the opinion that the public can comprehend a solid scientific definition and that they do not need astronomers to be condescending to them. I'm not an astronomer, but I have been called an external organization communications expert.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

I'll accept John Q Public's opinion, if JQP decides to read up and make an informed decision. If some howling mouthbreather wants to whine about it without understanding the real nature of the conversation, then their opinion means very little. Science doesn't bow to popular opinion. It is, or it is not, there is no lawyer to call if you don't like the outcome.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

I for one have changed my mind and would not have a problem with that. I think it's getting goofy now, at least judging from what threads I've read here.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Since when does it cost anything to call something a planet?

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

All the Textbook changes....

__________________
I'm a professional, please don't try this at home...

Heh, I said something about that yesterday with the way moon counts are constantly changing....

But then, I don't hear too much whining when new elements are added to the periodic table, so we'll get used to it.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

the word 'planet' is part of culture therefore I would say that public opinion is important in something as arbitrary as this definition. It's not like science is taking notice of what the public think the gravitational constant should be.

Good point, but I think the Big Eighters, the Pluto Haters, are just as guilty of trying to make Pi=3.0 for the sake of convenience. Since when is it a good idea to determine good science by the rule of majority, whether they are scientists or ignoramuses?

Or is that ignorami?

At least hydrostatic equilibrium is a empirical limit based in a physical process. That limit may be fuzzy without clear data, but at least it's not arbitrary.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

In this case, though, there are good arguments on all sides of the issue. If the mouthbreathers want to advocate any of the positions, they have an argument that backs them up.

It's the astronomers that are hard pressed to justify their efforts to the mouthbreathers.

This is hardly the strongest argument against changing the definition of 'Planet,' and increasing or decreasing the number of said objects. Having just looked through some of my GCSE textbooks from 2003 I notice that on the section of the planet Saturn, its moons for example are simply asserted as being 46+. This avoids confusion and accepts there may be more. This is probably what will happen to the number of planetary bodies. Placing an addition symbol negates the argument of textbook cost.
Just a thought.

CJ

Sides, if you don't change textbooks once in a while Gilleran[sic] and her type'll be outta work. I say change em once a year.

Did you mean Gillianren?
(Change it quick & I'll edit this so she doesn't notice!)

I think that we should leave the 9 planets alone. There are better and more scientific methods for classifying the bodies in the solar system.

If you've read up on the issue at all you'll realise that this is in fact the most untenable position of all to hold!

It doesn't make a skerrick of logical sense for there to be 9 planets based on any sensible definition of what a planet actually is.

__________________
BugMeNot A portal to bypass free-site registration.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer - renowned 19th Century German philosopher.

Do the properties of Pluto change depending on what we call it?

One thing that will certainly change is how much money is spent by various Earth based Space Agencies spending probes to investigate its various properties.

As a planet, an object undoubtedly has much greater pulling power of this funding which creates a self-reinforcing cycle that promotes its own public importance and then pulls in more funding.

If the mooted proposal got up you can be certain that Ceres would suddenly enjoy much more attention from various visiting space agencies - which might even have an effect on what eventually happens to it, ie - to what extent at some point in the future it is mined - and that will have many effects on any celestial object.

__________________
BugMeNot A portal to bypass free-site registration.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer - renowned 19th Century German philosopher.