- Topics
- Aerospace
- Animals
- Anthro and Archaeology
- Bio and Medicine
- Brain and Behavior
- Business and Economy
- Computers and Electronics
- Education and Outreach
- Energy and Environment
- Geoscience
- Internet and Communication
- Media and Entertainment
- Nanotech, Chem and Materials
- Physics and Numbers
- Security and Defense
- Software
- Space
- Transportation
- Reader Blogs
- Commerce
- Register/Login
- RSS
Ich Bin Ein Plutonian!
The presidential candidates have scrapped the idea of a Science Debate. The good news is that it doesn't matter, because the wonder of television allows them to debate any topic with each other without the annoyance of personal proximity. That being the case, I think it's time the public started giving them some truly difficult science questions in campaign forums. The trick is to find the perfect hot button scientific/political issue to stoke the flames.
What topic did I have in mind? I'm glad you asked.
Scientific American has published an article recently about the continuing struggle to help "the Pluto formerly known as planet" to be welcomed back into the hierarchy of the solar family. Although it was demoted over a year ago, some die-hards are determined to restore the lofty status of a giant, frozen rock.
Why? Here's their main reason:
"...to teach the public that science is a process of constant revision and refinement. 'People should be exposed to that process,' he says. 'The IAU process gave the impression that science is done by a bunch of scientists voting behind closed doors.'"
In other words, we need to revisit this debate so that the good people of the world don't think that astronomical definitions are made without an extensive democratic process. For Americans, nothing short of consent from the masses should be sufficient. A small, select group of individuals making permanent changes independent of the will of the people? That's unprecedented.
I propose that we make this the top issue of the presidential debate. I especially encourage the good people of Pennsylvania to step up on this. Ask your favorite candidate where he or she stands on the Pluto Question.
Now, you may be one of the minority who think that this really isn't an important topic at all. You may debate about whether or not it can even be called science. (By the way, if one were to place a stool on Pluto, would it be more controversial to say that it was a "stool on a planet" or a "chair on a Kuiper Belt Object?") But I'm telling you that this could quickly become the deciding issue between the Democratic nominees.
Let's say that Obama is in favor of Pluto reinstatement on the grounds that the decision was made without a significant public debate. After all, he fights for the people. Of course Hillary would have to oppose it in support of the establishment. The scientific community would get behind Hillary, since none of us wants to upset the covert organization that dictates all scientific decisions (have I said to much?). But what about the public? There may be a lot of residual sympathy for the little guy.
The fight would come to a crest when the candidates start comparing themselves to Pluto as the "underdog" Pluto's a dog. Get it?
From there, the story could tangent off to anywhere. Is exclusion of Kuiper Belt objects akin to a prejudice? And if so, is it more like racism or sexism? If it's more like a rock then a planet, was it intelligently designed? Should we subject all celestial bodies to some sort of standardized testing system? Should it be the next destination after the Chinese beat us to Mars? Most importantly, what does Oprah think?
I expect to see this discussion raging over the airwaves very soon. I would like to say "you're welcome" to the Democratic Party for showing them the way to resolution.
Submitted by Renaisauce on Thu, 2008-04-10 19:27.
- Renaisauce's blog
- Printer-friendly version
- 1473 reads
Actually, Skizzy...
Skizzy,
My filters are always on when reading Renaisauce's blog. He always has some humor to leaven his posts.
But the scientist I was objecting to was dead serious in claiming that the IAU process somehow misrepresented science.
Perhaps there was some media coverage that failed to convey what was going on, but everything I saw seemed to get both the big picture and most details right.
Now if the Democratic party can only follow the IAU's example of transparent decision making--but that's for a different blog :) (I'm in PA, and I'll be working for my candidate as the primary approaches.)
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Fred, I don't think you have your filters on today
There was a lot of tongue-in-cheek in that post.
One point about the topic in general: I was confused in second grade about why pluto was a planet - it made no sense. Why not a comet? It is not on the eliptical plane, has an streched oblong orbit, is as tiny as a mouse and and is made of an ice & rock slurry. Confused me then and now it makes sense to define a planet with such precision that objects like pluto are not included.
That said, a "stool on uranus" should have been your go-to catch phrase above. If you could have somehow elagantly folded it in, with nary a call out, it would have made the post. :)
Re: Vote for Pluto and change nothing of planetary significance
Fred:
Actually, I think that classifying Pluto as a Kuiper Belt object increases the importance of New Horizon's visit thereto. :-)
On the IAU vote, I absolutely agree that what was involved was only an issue of the definition of what does the official term "planet" mean, or, more specifically, what characterizes a body that is to be given this label.
Actually, I was pulling for a version that preceded the final designation. Of course that one would have significantly increased the number of "planets" in our solar system. (I would then pity the poor future grade schoolers that would have to memorize all the planets' names, and how the number of such would almost certainly increase over time. I suppose one could consider the present situation to be merciful to future generations.)
David
The Unnamed Scientist
The quote was from "Mark Sykes, director of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Ariz." Further quotes by him and others in the article to which I have hyperlinked in the post.
As I recall, the article also mentions similar re-enacted votes, where people tended to vote Pluto down.
One possible solution here is to call everything we find in space a "thingy". That way, there's no hurt feelings by people who name stuff.
Vote for Pluto and change nothing of planetary significance
Renaisauce quotes an unnamed scientist as saying: 'The IAU process gave the impression that science is done by a bunch of scientists voting behind closed doors.'
Really? Scientific theory relating to planets is developed based on evidence, not votes. As I point out to kids who ask me about the vote, Pluto was unaffected by it. All that changed was the human definition of the term once scientists realized that it was no longer as clear cut. Why the realization? New information, of course! And that doesn't change the importance of the New Horizon's mission that will reach Pluto and the Kuiper Belt in 2015.
Furthermore, I got the impression that the final IAU vote was contentious and open. Perhaps I had different sources about the event. The most memorable for me was a public lecture by planetary astronomer Heidi Hammel, where she allowed the audience to re-enact the vote after she provided the history of planets and other bodies, such as asteroids.
I admit to having a bias here. I wrote a young readers biography of Heidi called Beyond Jupiter, published in 2005.
But even before I met Heidi, I had been grappling with the planetary status of Pluto on my website for young readers. The latest version of my "Ask Dr. Fred" question about the number of planets includes not only a discussion of the IAU deliberations but also a link to the last version I wrote before the famous vote.
Finally, let me point readers to my review of a book called Is Pluto a Planet? by David A. Weintraub, who argues that the official definition of "planet" should include Pluto and many other bodies of comparable size. Is he the unnamed scientist in the article, Renaisauce?
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Post new comment