Neil deGrasse Tyson Blown Out! Pluto is a Planet Again (Not Really)!

[DubipR]

In your face, Neil Degrasse Tyson!

[Paradox]

Pinsir doesn't think this through:

This isn't some aspiration to reconstitute the British Empire, its about properly identifying an object. When your main argument against Pluto is that it would open the door for more things to be dubbed planets and it might confuse kids, we got a problem here.

It's not, really. You're just going by some sound bite, not scientific inquiry. There's a bunch of reasons, many of them stemming from the likelihood that Pluto is a "captured" object, and didn't develop along the same line as the planets. It's not even in the same elliptic plane as the rest and its composition is much more like the other Kuiper Belt objects than it is to the planets. I'm actually a bit surprised it took as long as it did to reclassify it.

[the4thpip]

Sorry, Pluto's still not a planet

[Paradox]

It's not really a hoax, though. Just stupid people not actually reading the article.

[Shawn Hopkins]

This isn't some aspiration to reconstitute the British Empire, its about properly identifying an object. When your main argument against Pluto is that it would open the door for more things to be dubbed planets and it might confuse kids, we got a problem here.

Besides I'm not even opposed to calling Pluto something else, my problem is that the new definitions make no sense. The "no neighboring objects" clause means most planets are now not planets. Earth itself has stuff in its rotation and Uranus' crosses Pluto do to its odd orbit too. Combine this with the fact that this definition seems to apply only to our universe and that were making broad assumptions on objects just identified.

Besides, there is no such thing as a 'closed case' in science. Theories are constantly being reevaluated and changed to meet new criteria.

Yes, there's no such thing as a closed case. That's why the IAU finally defined what a planet is. Pluto doesn't fit that definition. They aren't going to change it back, this is just media hype. And it does matter that we'd have to name Eris and a bunch of other rocks planets if you included Pluto, because scientific definitions should be precise and not vague suggestions.

And I'm not sure you understand the issue. It's not a "no neighboring objects clause," it's clearing the neighborhood of things that the planet doesn't gravitationally dominate. Also, it doesn't apply to our universe, just our solar system.

Your right, he is more of a proto-neckbeard. He probably isn't a misogynist so he can never be a full blown atheist neckbeard. To me though I always get the idea that he is holding back on some of his more extremist views because he is a PR person.

He did make a statement for instance that philosophy is useless (despite science clearly being a philosophy), which is a statement neckbeards do make. I agree religious claims should be judged scientifically, but when scientists start making these claims...

You're judging him for things you think he might believe but doesn't say. That's unfair. Characterizing him as saying philosophy is "useless" isn't fair, he actually called it "distracting."

And you strike me as just being annoyed he doesn't bow down to your big mean boss in the sky.

[the4thpip]

Your right, .

What's with his right? Are you coaching him as a boxer? Should he lead with his left instead of his right?

[Mikekerr3]

This isn't some aspiration to reconstitute the British Empire, its about properly identifying an object. When your main argument against Pluto is that it would open the door for more things to be dubbed planets and it might confuse kids, we got a problem here.

Besides I'm not even opposed to calling Pluto something else, my problem is that the new definitions make no sense. The "no neighboring objects" clause means most planets are now not planets. Earth itself has stuff in its rotation and Uranus' crosses Pluto do to its odd orbit too. Combine this with the fact that this definition seems to apply only to our universe and that were making broad assumptions on objects just identified.

Besides, there is no such thing as a 'closed case' in science. Theories are constantly being reevaluated and changed to meet new criteria.



Your right, he is more of a proto-neckbeard. He probably isn't a misogynist so he can never be a full blown atheist neckbeard. To me though I always get the idea that he is holding back on some of his more extremist views because he is a PR person.

He did make a statement for instance that philosophy is useless (despite science clearly being a philosophy), which is a statement neckbeards do make. I agree religious claims should be judged scientifically, but when scientists start making these claims...

Philosophy in general is about as useful as any other form of mental masturbation.
Science is a technique that works not a philosophy which require not attachment to observable reality at all.W

When Philosophers pretend to observe reality they tend to lead people into dead ends and silliness, Sometimes for the so called great philosopher to the extent that they damage humanity for centuries or millennium. The damage that Aristotle alone did is still evident

[Shawn Hopkins]

Philosophy is the talk on the cereal box.

[Legato]

Whether Pluto is a planet, planetoid, dwarf planet or Kuiper belt object, the only relevance it has is "What do you call Pluto?" What we humans have decided to call it doesn't change anything in reality, and is meaningless in the big scheme of things.

In other words. Who cares?

[emac1790]

This is pretty silly. Love this comment from said link...

...plays on the average internet dweller's assumption that 'harvard astronomers' = body of people able to officially make that change, as opposed to an 'audience debate' which seems to hold no reclassification power. Cue wild internet handflapping "HORRAY, PLUTO IS A PLANET AGAIN" ...

I'm just waiting for New Horizons to get there. That's the real news story.