Be like Pluto.
-
Yeah, there never was an option to keep 9 planets. It was either 8, all of which are already familiar, or many many more. And they wouldn't all be added neatly at the end either. Removing Pluto was the sensible choice.
Possibly over 100.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The meme does get at an important point though -
Our classifications of things have no impact on the things themselves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. We create the category “planet” as a useful tool for referring to certain categories of astronomical objects. These objects would exist whether we had words for them are not.
There are patterns in what the word “planet” describes that would also be shared, whether all of those things were called “planets” are not, but the words themselves are just useful shorthands depending on the context that we use them in. The map is not the territory; the referent is not the reference.
(This is also about sex/gender.)
-
Not to the degree of Pluto, which also can't be bothered to orbit in the solar plane
Neither can Eris, but it's also not a planet probably
-
So whatever hypothetical density constitutes an atmosphere becomes the arbitrary line in the sand.
Similar to the arbitrarily defined density of other stuff in the same orbit. We need to draw lines somewhere to impose categories on nature.
-
The meme does get at an important point though -
Our classifications of things have no impact on the things themselves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. We create the category “planet” as a useful tool for referring to certain categories of astronomical objects. These objects would exist whether we had words for them are not.
There are patterns in what the word “planet” describes that would also be shared, whether all of those things were called “planets” are not, but the words themselves are just useful shorthands depending on the context that we use them in. The map is not the territory; the referent is not the reference.
(This is also about sex/gender.)
referent
I like this word
-
referent
I like this word
wrote last edited by [email protected]- Compare knowing and saying:
how many feet high Mont Blanc is
how the word "game" is used
how a clarinet sounds.
If you are surprised that one can know something and not be able to say it, you are perhaps thinking of a case like the first. Certainly not of one like the third.
- Consider this example. If one says "Moses did not exist", this may mean various things. It may mean: the Israelites did not have a single leader when they withdrew from Egypt--Or: their leader was not called Moses
-Or: there cannot have been anyone
who accomplished all that the Bible relates of Moses-Or: etc. etc. We may say, following Russell: the name "Moses"-can be defined by means of various descriptions. For example, as "the man who led the Israelites through the wilderness" , "the man who lived at that time and place and was then called 'Moses " "the man who as a child was taken out of the Nile by Pharaoh's daughter" and so on. And according as we assume one definition or another the proposition "Moses did not exist? acquires a different sense, and so does every other
proposition about Moses. -And if we are told "N did not exist", we do
ask: "What do you mean? Do you want to say . . . ... Or . . . ... etc.?" But when I make a statement about Moses, am I always ready to substitute some one of these descriptions for "Moses"? I shall perhaps say: By "Moses" I understand the man who did what the Bible relates of Moses, or at any rate a good deal of it. But how much? Have I decided how much must be proved false for me to give up my proposition as false? Has the name "Moses" got a fixed and unequivocal use for me in all possible cases? Is it not the case that I have, so to speak, a whole series of props in readiness, and am ready to lean on one if another should be taken from under me and vice versa?
Consider another case. When I say "N is dead", then something like the following may hold for the meaning of the name "N": I believe that a human being has lived, whom I (1) have seen in such-and-such places, who
(2) looked like this (pictures), (3) has done such-and-such things, and
(4) bore the name "N" in social life. Asked what I understand by
"N", I should enumerate all or some of these points, and different ones on different occasions. So my definition of "N" would perhaps be "the man of whom all this is true". But if some point now proves false?-Shall I be prepared to declare the proposition "N is dead" false- even if it is only something which strikes me as incidental that has turned out false? But where are the bounds of the incidental?-If I had given a definition of the name in such a case, I should now be ready to alter it.And this can be expressed like this: I use the name "N" without a fixed meaning. But that detracts as little from its usefulness, as it detracts from that of a table that it stands on four legs instead of three and so sometimes wobbles.)
Should it be said that I am using a word whose meaning I don't know, and so am talking nonsense? Say what you choose, so long as it does not prevent you from seeing the facts. (And when you see them there is a good deal that you will not say.)
Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations
-
This post did not contain any content.
I still classify you as a planet, Pluto. So did the old ones.
-
Neither can Eris, but it's also not a planet probably
It's more deserving of being a planet than Pluto
-
This post did not contain any content.
This guy never got the memo: https://youtu.be/mWKDZRJWdF4
-
Now and then, we all get a thought
That stops us in our tracks
-
OK, how about Eris
Hail Eris!
-
I don't think the sun is in orbit around the sun.
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's very heliocentric of you.
The definition of 'planet' has changed a lot in the last few millennia.
-
Pluto was
Because Pluto is the 9th planet?
How are you counting?
The moons of Jupiter and Saturn were called satellite planets from their discovery until sometime in the 20th century.
The first several asteroids were called planets, until enough were discovered that the term 'asteroid' was invented and they were renamed.
The first Kuiper belt objects were called planets, until enough were discovered that it turns out Pluto is mostly just a particularly reflective example.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It was reclassified, not decommissioned.
-
Problem is that it doesn't really circles but ellipses.
The problem was that it turns out there's a lot more bodies around the same size, so now it's a planetoid, or scientifically, a Lowercase Planet.
-
Yet Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter...as though they are similar in any way. "Planet" is one of the few times science has decided to change something for the sole purpose of keeping the Earth important in its classification. I suppose we could not have 15 or 20 or 40 planets because that would be confusing...yet we have almost 1000 moons. It is ONLY because it is the Earth's classification...no other reason. It doesn't make anything easier or less confusing.
They could have easily made mercury, pluto, and a dozen others dwarf planets, Venus Earth and Mars terrestrial planets and the others gas planets... but that would demote Earth.
Weird left over geocentrism remaining in science like it's the 1300s.
Er... Are you saying that scientists won't classify Earth as a Terrestrial Planet? Because they do.. The next 4 are Jovian Planets, while others including Asteroids are called Minor Planets.
If you check the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet you'll notice some scientists consider Earth's Moon, plus Io and Europa terrestrial planets as well.
I don't see how it would be a demotion. Pluto is a planet, but not one of the terrestrial or Jovian Planets, but instead a minor planet, a dwarf planet. The people who insist on the 9 or 8 planets is less scientists and more about what we teach as the main planets in the solar system to like kids and such.
I'm a bit confused on your idea of scientists. They love being more specific about definitions, as do many other technical fields. Ask medicals scientists about Cancer or heart disease and they'll explain they're very broad terms that have many subcategories and differences, which is why there isn't 1 easy cure. Similarly, "the common cold" is just a description of symptoms carried out by a number of different viruses from different families that our bodies just tend to react to in the same way, which is why a cure for the common cold is a ridiculous thing to hope for.
These definitions aren't usually for scientists, but instead generalizations the public settle on because remembering everything would be too much for people who aren't interested or involved.
-
Er... Are you saying that scientists won't classify Earth as a Terrestrial Planet? Because they do.. The next 4 are Jovian Planets, while others including Asteroids are called Minor Planets.
If you check the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet you'll notice some scientists consider Earth's Moon, plus Io and Europa terrestrial planets as well.
I don't see how it would be a demotion. Pluto is a planet, but not one of the terrestrial or Jovian Planets, but instead a minor planet, a dwarf planet. The people who insist on the 9 or 8 planets is less scientists and more about what we teach as the main planets in the solar system to like kids and such.
I'm a bit confused on your idea of scientists. They love being more specific about definitions, as do many other technical fields. Ask medicals scientists about Cancer or heart disease and they'll explain they're very broad terms that have many subcategories and differences, which is why there isn't 1 easy cure. Similarly, "the common cold" is just a description of symptoms carried out by a number of different viruses from different families that our bodies just tend to react to in the same way, which is why a cure for the common cold is a ridiculous thing to hope for.
These definitions aren't usually for scientists, but instead generalizations the public settle on because remembering everything would be too much for people who aren't interested or involved.
I understand and completely agree wiyh your point except there are no sub categories of planets. This move was specially made (by a super minority of voters at a last minute end of the conference vote) to keep Earth's classification as a planet more important. First of all, and frankly insane, Pluto is not under the classifocation of a planet. It is a dwarf planet that, contrary to logic, is NOT a sub category of a planet. If you look at the Euler diagram on the wiki page for dwarf planets you can see they specifically made sure planets were a stand alone category. Sub categories like you mentioned make perfect sense but would slightly diminish Earth's "special" classification.
I would love for all of the bodies to be under a large hierarchical classification as you suggested but oddly they are not. It's disjointed and I think done in a way specifically to spite others in a bit of a power fit.
-
referent
I like this word
what's that screenshot from
-
This post did not contain any content.
What if Russia is like Pluto?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I am rooting for Pluto
