Poll: Pluto, is it still a planet?

[DracoSuave]

dumbass "scientists"

Bit of a paradox.

Not really. A scientists job is to acquire knowledge. Not to already be wise. Also those "scientists" who bring us such amazing finds that gamers tend to be virgins or tend to be depressed overweight losers, do you really think they deserve the title?
It is like saying a house wife who can scramble eggs is a gourmet chef, or if she applies a band aid to her kids cut finger then she is a doctor.

Anyone who fails to use or show the scientific method when determining generalities about a given phenomenon (translation: basing an opinion on scientists forged on popular cultural stereotype) should not be regarded as an expert in the field of what a scientist should or should not do as their primary job function.

A scientist's job is to apply the scientific method to phenomenon.

First, they acquire observations about that phenomenon.
Second, they characterize that phenomenon
Third, they propose an explanation for the phenmenon
Fourth, they come to a prediction based on the proposed explanation
Fifth, they test this theory in the field of experimentation.

And then the cycle repeats itself.

Catagorizing a celestial body comes in the form of the second step, characterizing the phenomenon.

Which means that, yes, reclassifying objects based upon observations and experiments is, in fact, a part of the scientific method.

Which means that, yes, the scientist -is- doing the right thing by doing so. If a scientist does not have room to reclassify, he is not properly executing the scientific method.

 

[Skeleon]

If the scientists say it's not a planet, then it's not a planet. It's not like this is a subjective thing.

This. What's currently accepted by the scientific world is what I'll accept.
Anyway, there's always been doubt about Pluto because of its size, so adapting to this change is not that difficult to me.

 

[gremily]

Oh Pluto... Your still a planet in my eyes.

 

[ssgt splatter]

No. It's more of a planetoid than an actual planet. An asteroid that's too big to be called an asteroid.

 

[Roxas1359]

I say it is sort of. The reason is because it is classified as a dwarf planet by scientists. But others still say it is planet.

 

[DracoSuave]

But others still say it is planet.

The problem with this is that the argument that it was called a planet in the first place was based on the premise 'the scientific community called it that.'

So, you have the situation where one appeals to authority (Science called it that at one point) as a reason not to appeal to that same authoirity (But they don't anymore, so I'm just going to go with what it used to be.)

To call it a planet 'because it's always been a planet' is an self-defeating argument, as your very point 'it was always called that' is defeated by the very source of authority you call as your expertise on the subject.

A more honest approach would be to say 'I'm calling it a planet because I'm too lazy to reclassify it.' That's a much more cogent argument, and it's more intellectually honest.

 

[Burck]

Dwarf planet [explitive]s. It's also made of ice and would melt if it were too close to the sun. A giant snowball is NOT a planet.

Also Bill Nye agreed.

 

[Roxas1359]

But others still say it is planet.

The problem with this is that the argument that it was called a planet in the first place was based on the premise 'the scientific community called it that.'

So, you have the situation where one appeals to authority (Science called it that at one point) as a reason not to appeal to that same authoirity (But they don't anymore, so I'm just going to go with what it used to be.)

To call it a planet 'because it's always been a planet' is an self-defeating argument, as your very point 'it was always called that' is defeated by the very source of authority you call as your expertise on the subject.

A more honest approach would be to say 'I'm calling it a planet because I'm too lazy to reclassify it.' That's a much more cogent argument, and it's more intellectually honest.

I actually believe it to be a dwarf planet. I mean when Pluto was discovered the technology at the time wasn't as good as it is today. Science is always changing because of better technology, new variables and new theories. But some people think that once an anwser is found that it is solved forever, but there can be millions of other anwsers to it.

 

[Ancientgamer]

No, not since the definition of "planet" changed.

It's not that it changed, it's that we'd never actually had a real definition of the word before. Scientists got together and finally decided it needed to be defined. Pluto didn't make the cut, that's all there is to it.

You have a contradiction in your posts. You say this isn't subjective, but all definitions are subjective. We made them up. Just because some things are defined by groups with an education doesn't make the definitions any less subjective. If scientists had defined planet as "Those things circling the sun planet like (as opposed to moon-like) that got enough attention as a planetary type object" then pluto would still be in. If scientists had said "Those object circling the sun planet like, and here are the nine named ones" it would still be in. Granted, the dividing line isn't completely arbitrary as we can see differences from one group (the 8 recognized planets) and the oddballs (Pluto and Vesta) but if we look hard enough we can find any number of qualifiers to use to define planet.

So here's a question: Why do the scientists who didn't actually discover the planets get to define what is and isn't a planet? Why not look for those qualifiers that led to the discovery of the 9 planets and use that as a defining quality? Pluto could be the planetary representative of the Kupier Belt, sort like an ambassador that fits in both the group they're from and the group they're entreating.

They're not interpreting the definition, they're creating it. A term created to represent an objective fact can not be subjective in any logical situation.

For instance, If you some reason you always lump extinct animals together and call a woolley mammoth a "dinosaur". Then a scientist comes along and says "you know, those aren't really dinosaurs, they're mammals." You get in a huff and say "Well what your definition of a dinosaur?" He says "Well the official definition is that-" "So it's subjective!" you proclaim.


Point being, yes, you can argue subjectivity for anything. From planets to definitions to art and back again. But at some point that makes you a raving lunatic. You can convince yourself pluto's still a planet, but it'll still only be in your own little world

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Yes. If it is a small rock revolving around a star then it IS a planet. Size does not matter, you know (dick joke).

 

[Arcticflame]

If the scientists say it's not a planet, then it's not a planet. It's not like this is a subjective thing.

Didn't scientist also say that there was going to be an ice age in the 70's and say that there is global warming now? And, shortly after they said Pluto wasn't a planet, they declared some big ball of gas in another solar system a planet... Oh, and how could I forget... scientist did all these tests on bumble bees, looking at the size of their wings, their body eight, and everything... And they came to the conclusion that it is physically impossible for bumble bees to fly...

The ice age thing was spread by raving loonies.

The bumble-bee not being able to fly on the basis of physics is a myth.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I do. Then agian I believe it has penguins and robots in tuxedos on it.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

No. All it is, is a big asteroid thats suprisingly spherically shaped.


It has no atmosphere, for all you "Any planet could be called that" people.

 

[clicketycrack]

I don't believe in Pluto. Why isn't there an option for that?

 

[Captain Blackout]

No, not since the definition of "planet" changed.

It's not that it changed, it's that we'd never actually had a real definition of the word before. Scientists got together and finally decided it needed to be defined. Pluto didn't make the cut, that's all there is to it.

You have a contradiction in your posts. You say this isn't subjective, but all definitions are subjective. We made them up. Just because some things are defined by groups with an education doesn't make the definitions any less subjective. If scientists had defined planet as "Those things circling the sun planet like (as opposed to moon-like) that got enough attention as a planetary type object" then pluto would still be in. If scientists had said "Those object circling the sun planet like, and here are the nine named ones" it would still be in. Granted, the dividing line isn't completely arbitrary as we can see differences from one group (the 8 recognized planets) and the oddballs (Pluto and Vesta) but if we look hard enough we can find any number of qualifiers to use to define planet.

So here's a question: Why do the scientists who didn't actually discover the planets get to define what is and isn't a planet? Why not look for those qualifiers that led to the discovery of the 9 planets and use that as a defining quality? Pluto could be the planetary representative of the Kupier Belt, sort like an ambassador that fits in both the group they're from and the group they're entreating.

They're not interpreting the definition, they're creating it. A term created to represent an objective fact can not be subjective in any logical situation.

For instance, If you some reason you always lump extinct animals together and call a woolley mammoth a "dinosaur". Then a scientist comes along and says "you know, those aren't really dinosaurs, they're mammals." You get in a huff and say "Well what your definition of a dinosaur?" He says "Well the official definition is that-" "So it's subjective!" you proclaim.


Point being, yes, you can argue subjectivity for anything. From planets to definitions to art and back again. But at some point that makes you a raving lunatic. You can convince yourself pluto's still a planet, but it'll still only be in your own little world

A) The raving lunatic pointed out that there's a non-arbitrary qualifier in what the scientists have done, or did you miss that part in making sure you were right and I was wrong

B) Language is inherently subjective. Just because a scientist started using it does not make it any less subjective. Sorry, philosophy of language trumps science when discussing the nature of definitions.

C) You almost completely skipped my questions. They were honest and straight-foward, and you merely alluded to answers with your mammoth metaphor. Again, was this a response or just "I'm right you're wrong?"

 

[gagalloogie]

yeah obviously, sure its been reclassified, but come on, its like totally been a planet for people alive today, maybe in the future people will just referr to it as a dwarf planet, but for me at least its pluto, that really cold, small, far away planet, yeah PLUTO RULES!!!

 

[Dr_Matt]

B) Language is inherently subjective. Just because a scientist started using it does not make it any less subjective. Sorry, philosophy of language trumps science when discussing the nature of definitions.

Language may be subjective, but scientific definitions are not.

 

[Captain Blackout]

B) Language is inherently subjective. Just because a scientist started using it does not make it any less subjective. Sorry, philosophy of language trumps science when discussing the nature of definitions.

Language may be subjective, but scientific definitions are not.

Scientists look for objective criteria to classify objects however the choices of class are often completely subjective. Even in cases where they aren't the finer points still are, depending on what one uses to say "these items belong in different sets"

The question at hand here is a philosophical one, not scientific.

 

[Godhead]

Fuck science, I grew up with it being a planet it bloody well is one to me.