Planet Status Apathy
Before I start this post I ask you, dear reader, to read it in its entirety and do not jump to conclusions about my opinion before commenting. This post is about the apparently contentious issue of Pluto. I say contentious because I don't actually know any people in the non-Internet world (astronomers or real people) who really care one way or another about Pluto. They mostly have other worries such as exams, house prices, the reduction of our civil liberties and the price of fish.
This particular post is prompted by Laurele Kornfeld who has commented several times in my Pluto posts over the past year. Laurele appears (unless she is toying with me for her own amusement ;-) to think that I am either partly responsible for the IAU's decision in August 2006 or was in agreement with it. Laurele also thinks that the issue of whether Pluto is or isn't a planet is an issue of elitism and states on her blog that "no one group, no matter how educated, should be given the power to play God in setting boundaries of what is in and what is out".
I am, frankly, very confused as to why people think that the IAU is acting like God. The IAU has not physically done anything to Pluto. Neither has it decreed that people on planet Earth are not allowed to call Pluto a planet. Astronomers and planetary scientists simply don't have that power. The IAU has only defined (and poorly at that) the astronomical definition of planets within our own solar system. The IAU has previously defined that there are 88 constellations and what their official astronomical boundaries are. That decision also changed previously accepted definitions (without much scientific reason) but I don't think it generated the same level of animosity as Pluto has. It was simply a matter of a definition.
The problem here is possibly that some people are confused as to what power the IAU has. The IAU is only a governing body of astronomers/planetary scientists which coordinates efforts and promotes standards. It does not have a Death Star or a Vogon destructor fleet. Even if it did, its aim in this matter is to classify rather than physically remove planets. It doesn't even have the power to change the dictionary or control society in an Orwellian way to make us think that Pluto isn't a planet.
Another issue here is that people worry that somehow Pluto will be treated differently if it isn't a planet. Why should we treat it any differently? I am fairly confident that planetary scientists are not stupid people. I think we should allow for the fact that they may be sensible people who do not blindly follow strict rules about what objects they can and can't think about. After all, isn't it planetary scientists who look at asteroids and comets? Other than some people wanting to be offended, I don't think the decision should matter to any of us.
I would like to point out that, at the time of the debate, I wanted Pluto to remain a planet.
I say "at the time" because my attachment to that position has been
greatly soured by the attitude of many people online - such as Laurele
- who act as if this was the end of a world. It isn't. Pluto is still
Pluto and it doesn't matter what any of us say. Due to the pestering comments I've been getting on my blog, I am no longer inclined towards Pluto being a planet. I'm not against Pluto being a planet either. Pluto's status is not of importance to me; I accept Pluto for what it is.
Comments: Planet Status Apathy
I imagine that for many people, confident astronomical knowledge stops sometime around Pluto. The "Nine Planets" has been taught as an absolute in schools for so long that to change it (as had been done) has been mainly perceived as an attack on people's education.
People perhaps don't appreciate how dynamic the world of astronomy is and we should be using this opportunity to illustrate the advantages of the scientific method and show how even now we can still learn more about objects which are, relatively speaking, in our back garden.
On a side note I'd like the IAU to get rid of Lynx as a constellation - now *there* is a waste of space.
Posted by Nick on Wednesday 05th Sep 2007 (11:13 UTC)
Sigh... I wanted Pluto to remain a planet too. I have had several arguments about it with people who don't get why I'm annoyed.
I couldn't give a monkey's junk about the IAU it was more just that it seemed a little ridiculous to demote an idea.
To me it was a little like saying that the Indian Ocean was now the Indian Sea. Why bother?
Stellar Classifications, Planetary Nebulae, the Moon. all three are oddly named in at least one sense.
But like you, I have ceased to care for the most part. It doesn't matter really and as you say, Pluto is still Pluto. We'll love it whatever it choses to be in life.
Posted by Robert Simpson on Wednesday 05th Sep 2007 (12:01 UTC)
Don't try and confuse us with your finger pointing and shoulder shrugging. We KNOW you are the emperor of space and are solely responsible for the demotion of the PLANET Pluto. Return the designation to us or we'll be coming for you!
Viva La Resistance!
;)
Posted by Rob on Wednesday 05th Sep 2007 (12:03 UTC)
Rob, you've found me out! Mercury will be next. Mwahahaha!! ;-)
Posted by Stuart on Wednesday 05th Sep 2007 (16:18 UTC)
This comes a bit late in the game, but I've just gotten a bunch of comments from Laurel Kornfeld myself on my Demote Pluto blog, on old posts no one really cares about anymore. Judging from the volume of her Pluto posting all over the place, I'm starting to think she's some kind of spammer.
Posted by Paulo on Wednesday 05th Sep 2007 (16:27 UTC)
Paulo, Laurel does write real sentences about relevant topics so I'm not classing her as a spammer.
However, I'm not happy with one of her tactics. Many of the comments she leaves directly refer to the comments of individual astronomers and planetary scientists to justify her position. While the people she cites are all sensible, intelligent scientists, I don't sit easy with the implication that claimed "higher authority figures" win an argument. That isn't a good scientific basis for a discussion and is also condescending.
Posted by Stuart on Wednesday 05th Sep 2007 (17:26 UTC)
I am not a spammer and have no intent of being condescending toward anybody. If anyone perceived that from my writings, I apologize. My goal is to ilustrate that the IAU definition is just one view, and that the astronomy community is very far from having reached a consensus on this matter.
My contention here is with the widespread perception that the IAU is THE authority on this matter. Why else would encyclopedias and textbook publishers and schools automatically change their writings on the solar system to fit the IAU's decision?
I never claimed you were responsible for the IAU decision. If you took part in the vote that demoted Pluto, then I simply disagree with your choice.
The fact remains that perception is reality. I believe the IAU did more harm than good with this decision by heightening confusion over the matter through a hastily contrived definition adopted by a tiny minority of its members. The very narrow perspective of those who voted, the fact that they came to their decision with a pre-determined desire to exclude Pluto when it fits every criteria of being a planet, their arrogance in believing they alone can decide such a matter for all of humanity to me amount to elitism. If you disagree, so be it.
I happen to be one of many people who feel strongly on this matter, and as a writer, I am very prolific in expressing my opinions. In the end, I think we agree in discouraging anyone from accepting any point of view because someone else says so, whether it is the IAU, Dr. Stern, or a vocal advocate. My hope is anyone interested in this issue will examine ALL points of view critically and come to their own conclusions.
Posted by Laurel Kornfeld on Thursday 06th Sep 2007 (01:58 UTC)
Laurele, I still insist that the IAU does not believe that "they alone can decide such a matter for all of humanity". They only decide conventions for astronomers and planetary scientists to use. You are building them up to be something that they are not; they are not the UN. The IAU probably have far less political power than, say, the International Telecommunications Union.
'Humanity' quite often pays no attention to IAU decisions because they are usually quite esoteric and most of 'humanity' doesn't care. I say all this as someone who isn't a member but watches from the outside. As such I didn't get a vote in this.
Posted by Stuart on Thursday 06th Sep 2007 (10:21 UTC)
I agree that the decision was rushed. I was following the discussion in the lead up to and during the two weeks of the General Assembly (GA) in Prague. I even talked to several of the astronomers present (via phone and email) as it was happening. What did not go down well with those who were bothered enough to turn up was that the initial press release released on the first day (before the IAU members had had chance to read the proposal) was widely reported as a final decision. You can imagine that having the world's media tell you that your vote is irrelevant and that the decision had already been made did not go down too well. Poor reporting is in part responsible for what happened.
There should have been wider discussion amongst IAU members before the GA. There wasn't, but it is a mistake to think that this means the planet definition is fixed in stone for ever. At the GA in Manchester in 2000 it was decided that Pluto was a planet. In 2009 a new decision will no doubt be made and probably again in 2012.
So in summary, the IAU didn't and don't tell humanity what to think or do and their decision is most likely not the final one. Please stop making this into a much bigger deal than it is.
Posted by Stuart on Thursday 06th Sep 2007 (10:21 UTC)
Wow. I'm a bit unnerved now by how voluminous and adversarial her comments got on the Demote Pluto weblog, not to mention her use of bad Harry Potter references for political commentary, or the rather loaded language over Pluto all over her Livejournal. Holy cow. Someone's got issues.
Posted by Paulo on Thursday 06th Sep 2007 (14:43 UTC)
Oh, and I should also point out that there is a good final solution to our semantic quandary of planetary recategorization.
Posted by Paulo on Thursday 06th Sep 2007 (14:59 UTC)
Paulo, although I certainly don't condone that kind of behaviour, if you were set on it you may want to get tips from How to Destroy the Earth. It is a lot harder than you may think. ;-)
Posted by Stuart on Thursday 06th Sep 2007 (16:34 UTC)
Stuart - now I feel kinda demoted. Laurel has been all over my my Pluto blog posts too (eg recently here . I thought it was just me. Now I realise she has been kinda busy...
Personally (even though I voted ...) I don't see why the IAU has to define "planet" at all. As you say, it makes no scientific difference. The IAU doesn't feel the need to agree a resolution on the difference between a Seyfert galaxy and a quasar.
Posted by Andy Lawrence on Friday 07th Sep 2007 (23:53 UTC)
Andy--No need to feel demoted. I'm not like the IAU; I don't believe in demoting planets or people, except for incompetent politicians. I just happen to be an equal opportunity troublemaker. :)
I'm very happy to hear your conviction that there is no need for the IAU to define "planet" at all. Maybe you can convince them of that at the next General Assembly.
Posted by Laurel Kornfeld on Saturday 08th Sep 2007 (06:08 UTC)
Personally I was really glad that IAU decided against naming a planet every little rock with extravagant orbit a planet. "Demoting" Pluto is consistent with this and it was something I hoped for. I think it was coherent to revise our understanding of the Solar System as we explore it further rather than insisting on a particular view just because it may be more popular. However, I do agree with the fact that the decision was made under poor and unclear circumstances. Anyhow, as pointed on the blog already, this does not need to change the fact that Pluto remains Pluto and is still an interesting thing out there.
Posted by Qfwfq78 on Thursday 13th Sep 2007 (14:26 UTC)
I don't know the motives of the small % of IAU members in their reasoning of changing the definition of a planet. However, I encourage all to check out the IAU statutes and bye-laws as to how their meeting are "supposed" to be run, how documents are supposed to be disseminated to its members, how much time alloted before voting, and how the votes are supposed to be recorded. There were 400+ members who voted on the last day of the conference, yet there is no mention of who voted how. How many votes did this new definition get? I can't find a record of that. As far as the meeting- it was not run the way the "policies" are set. My big question is, "why?". Our own U.S. Congress would not allow only 4% of its members to vote on any issue with only a "majority" of that 4% present being given the ability to change U.S. laws. Perhaps the IAU should require a quorum.
Posted by sme on Sunday 28th Oct 2007 (19:32 UTC)
Sme, the IAU is not like the US Congress (or the UK Parliament). I think you are stretching the analogy with national governments in order to find something to complain about. The IAU's decisions are mostly about very dry topics and only affect astronomers. Even then, astronomers can still ignore those decisions if they wish. The IAU is a professional body that agrees standards and conventions.
In the US Congress or the UK Parliament it is appropriate for the way individuals vote to be recorded because those casting the votes are elected to represent a large group of citizens. In the context of the IAU this is not appropriate.
Posted by Stuart on Monday 29th Oct 2007 (03:55 UTC)
Stuart- I'm not complaining, just making an observation. I know members of congress and parliament are representing the public. But, why is there no recorded tally of the votes? It seems to me that while this is not a "public" body, the fact that they have some strict guidelines and statutes, and with their conclusions of some resolutions affecting those not within the "group", there would be some accountability. Just a thought. To have their voting set up so that no matter how small the attendance on any vote- it stands, doesn't seem to be a good process of dealing with any major topics and/or resolutions.
Posted by sme on Monday 29th Oct 2007 (19:19 UTC)
Sme, I still insist that this was more like a population voting in a general election (or referendum) than elected officials voting. Every astronomer in the IAU represents themselves and have their own opinions. All IAU members had the opportunity to go to the General Assembly as they knew that decision was going to be made but most astronomers are apathetic about the issue. If there was a low turnout due to apathy, would a general election be held again?
I do remember the votes being counted during that final meeting (I watched the webcast) but don't recall the numbers. The status of Pluto had previously been voted on at the General Assembly in 2000 so I strongly expect it to come up yet again in 2009.
Posted by Stuart on Monday 29th Oct 2007 (23:04 UTC)
can you tell me who decided on what a planet was? and how they had proof it was a planet thankyou
Posted by lynette on Wednesday 14th Nov 2007 (14:59 UTC)
Lynette, no one person decided what a planet was but a definition was agreed upon at the last General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union. I don't think I understand what you are asking with your second question. If you decide a definition, "proof" is showing that the object agrees with your definition.
Posted by Stuart on Wednesday 14th Nov 2007 (17:58 UTC)