Rejecting Pluto's demotion - Is this another case of anti-science syndrome?

I think government here is trying to mirror the will of the people, who have grown up with Pluto as a planet. It’s practically traditional. I don’t think, however, that the people should win in this case.

However, I also feel similarly about the People trying to legislate the teaching of “intelligent design” which is skewing science much the same way. For some, what they Believe is by necessity True, whether that makes us all mechanical watches, or whether it makes Pluto a planet.

I just never really saw the point of declaring it to be a planet or not, one way or the other. The only impact it really has on me is that I will have to chance the mnemonic device I use for remembering the order of the planets…

M y V ery E xcellent M other J ust S erved U s….. N othing, I guess.

I really don’t know why they wasted time in the legislature on this. Shouldn’t they be attending to more tangible, important matters?

Why do you regard it as a demotion rather that a re-classification?

I think it is more like a case of nostalgia. Definitions are a matter of consensus. If we want to define planets as “planets are bodies orbiting a sun that fulfill criteria X, Y, and Z – oh, and Pluto, even though it doesn’t” that is not unscientific, even if it is a bit cumbersome and maybe a tad silly. Claiming that Pluto fills criteria X, Y, and Z even if evidence says it doesn’t is unscientific. My impression is that currently what is going on is the former, not the latter. (I am not sure, though.)

Government should spend their time better than arguing over such definitions of words, however, scientific or not. Passing a law about something like that is plain silly.

I think it’s just, as the above answers say, a case of tradition. Frankly speaking, unless your work crosses over into the field of astronomy, I don’t see how Pluto’s classification would affect our lives.

Helloooo peopleeee! There’re wars going on here!!! Who cares about a frozen ball of rock four billion miles away?

People growing up learning one thing, and knowing it their whole life, only to discover that it is either wrong or amended in a way they don’t really agree with, will have a hard time accepting these changes.

I don’t really care, but I see why Pluto was reclassified. I wouldn’t have a problem calling it an asteroid, as long as there’d logic behind that decision and reasoning. Which there is in the case of Pluto.

@TitsMcGhee – Nachos! Another Jelly suggested “nachos” in the recent mnemonic thread.

Yes. Jesus doesn’t want you to believe in another planet.~

I think Pluto should be an honorary planet since it took a while to find other objects of notable size out beyond it.

Part of the problem is that we’ve never really had a definition of what a “planet” is until very recently.

I think science should be exact, there is no room for emotion in science. Name the damn rock by whatever definition it fits best, keep it clear and understandable.

My thought is that if you hired clowns and payed them minimum wage they’d make better politicians.

Thank heavens i’m in Europe.

I can’t believe there is any debate between the IAU and lay people regarding the status of a chunk of rock. If those whose job/expertise is to define these things say it is or is not a planet, why do politicians or the general populace think they have any valuable input? What effect does it have on any of us, whatever we call it? A rose by any other name…

@Thammuz Yes, European clowns are better. :p

@O At least our clowns don’t fuck with science. They only fuck with our personal freedom (And not as heavily as your ones) and with our economy (And not as heavily as your ones).

@Thammuz It seems to me that both American and European democracy have deep flaws, though not necessarily the same ones. But haven’t it always been like that (in modern history)?

Although the US is the first true democracy, utilizing french ideas, it doesn’t mean that America is always right. It is a working democracy, and as the most powerful nation the US has a given responsibility that sometimes is abused, I agree. I think perhaps that the US is a better leader than other possible nations in recent history. It could have been worse. But I agree. Some things america does are highly questionable.

But I think the US and Europe are more alike than different. And it doesn’t change that Pluto is the appendix of the solar system. We can do without it.

I don’t think it’s the same kind of anti-science we see in other places. Why was Pluto re-classified? I’m not an expert, and I don’t really care, but as I understand it, Pluto’s classification now is a new one created mainly because they discovered a bunch more Pluto like objects that they didn’t want to call planets, and that some astronomers disagree with it too. But I could be wrong about that. If it’s just a re-classification of convenience rather than based on some scientific evidence that differentiates Pluto from the planets, then maybe science was being anti-science.

“Do you agree that Pluto is a dwarf planet like Eris and Ceres?”
I cannot answer that question, because I am not an astronomer.

Funny thing is, neither is any single one of those sign-waving lunatics who take to the streets to defend the status of a lump of rock thousands of miles away.
The American people have somehow ended up with a mind-set where any average Sally or Joe thinks they are qualified to second-guess the judgement of whole communities of professional experts, without even bothering to read up on what they’re talking about.
Whereas science ISN’T an ivory tower at all. Anyone who can pay for a scientific magazine can see the scientists at work, sharing and bickering over this hypothesis and those data. This is what you need to read in order to form an education opinion of your own. But nobody bothers to.

@DarkScribe – Personally I don’t see it as a demotion. I was referring to a common public perception. To me it’s a re-classification. And one that does make sense. Do we want our kids to memorize the 38 planets of the solar system in the year 2020?

Besides, a dwarf planet does still belong to the category ‘planet’ and the word is part of its term. Nobody calls Pluto a giant rock.

@Fyrius I think most people don’t really care what Pluto is called. They are the ones that are NOT on the street. But then again, I think people are entitled to show their opinions. It is an opinion driven society we live in. I agree it’s a stupid fuss, but as long as they don’t kill doctors or Darwin, I say let them squabble.

@O
“Although the US is the first true democracy”
I think the Greeks would like a word with you. Unless your arbitrary definition of ”true democracy” makes only America qualify.

@Fyrius Athenian democracy should be respected, as it also was taken up by ancient Rome. But I think you can agree to that the old Greek version of democracy wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny these days.

@gussnarp – There is in fact scientific evidence that differentiates Pluto from the other planets. From Wikipedia: Pluto is now considered the largest member of a distinct population called the Kuiper belt. Like other members of the Kuiper belt, Pluto is composed primarily of rock and ice and is relatively small. It has an eccentric and highly inclined orbit that takes it from 30 to 49 AU (4.4–7.4 billion km) from the Sun.

So in many respects Pluto is very similar to Eris, Varuna, Sedna, Orcus, Haumea and Quaoar.

I think it’s ridiculous that politicians in New Mexico think they are smarter than renowned astronomers. @mrentropy – Yes, maybe the honorary planet award could solve the issue.

@O
I’m making a mess of this, replying to your later post before your earlier one. Apologies.

“But then again, I think people are entitled to show their opinions.”
Yes, people have a right to express their opinions. The thing is, this is NOT a matter of OPINION. It’s a matter of SCIENCE.
If Pluto is to be called a planet, that makes the definition of that word inconsistent. Science cannot afford to work with inconsistent definitions. Much less can it afford to give in to nostalgic dogmatism.

Can you imagine where we would be if the field of chemistry clung to its belief that everything in the world consists of fire, earth, water and air?

“But I think you can agree to that the old Greek version of democracy wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny these days.”
Hm. Yes. If only because we don’t deny slaves the right to vote.
But were the USA truly the first democracy that would hold up to scrutiny?

Edit: Hang on, I’m digressing again. Bad habit.
If you want to leave this issue open, we probably should.

@O – I would have to agree with @Thammuz. Sadly, the infection rate of the “virus” causing anti-science syndrome in the United States is about 100 times higher than in most countries in Europe. Pluto is just a minor symptom. Rejecting evolution and man-made climate change, however, should be considered major symptoms. I wonder why Europe has better vaccines and I wonder what they are. Education? A peaceful co-existence of science and religion?

@mattbrowne Well, there you go. I still don’t think it seems as anti-science as some other issues, but it is exceedingly silly. Do these guys think they’re going to get votes for this?

@Fyrius
it wouldn’t
blacks were not allowed to vote, and women weren’t either. they were more similar to the greek model than they like to admit.

@Fyrius Well. We can agree on that the ideas of democracy started in Europe, and leave it at that maybe. The US and Europe are of the same clay. We do the same things, slightly different. But there is the religious aspect in it all as well.
@mattbrowne You might be right. There are aspects of the debate that are troublesome to say the least.

Just to remind everybody what IAU really stands for. From Wikipedia: The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is a collection of professional astronomers, at the Ph.D. level and beyond, active in professional research and education in astronomy. Headquartered in Paris, France, it acts as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies (stars, planets, asteroids, etc.).

Now if the California state assembly, New Mexico’s House of Representatives, Illinois State Senate really get away with what they did, we’re in trouble. Undermining scientific authority on scientific matters is a dangerous path. It will increase science illiteracy. More and more young people will turn away from science because of its supposed “bad” reputation.

Sorry to say this, but to me the mindset of the California state assembly is not so much different from that of the Catholic church in 1615. And the same seems true for all private schools who teach young-earth creationism and “intelligent” design giving the poor kids the illusion that there’s a scientific controversy. There isn’t.

So yes, @Fyrius this is NOT a matter of OPINION. It’s a matter of SCIENCE.

@mattbrowne Except that this is a petty political ploy that lacks any real force. These are resolutions, they do not have the force of law or change what will be taught. Now if they were levying punishment for not calling Pluto a planet, or forcing schools to teach that Pluto is a planet, then I would agree with you. This silliness will pass and the notion of Pluto as a planet will vanish within a generation or two. I already have a children’s book of planets for my son that doesn’t have Pluto in it.

@gussnarp – Don’t you think that anti-science sentiments should be taken seriously? It’s the attitude that’s bothering me. You see 30 years ago, everybody had great respect for science and scientists. Today science-illiterate people are bashing organizations like IAU or IPCC and others. Climate change a myth. Evolutionists brainwashing our unsuspecting kids. What can we do to change the trend?

My thought is, “If politicians have time & inclination to give half a crap whether Pluto is classified as a planet or a dwarf planet, then things must be much, much better off in the country than they appear on the evening news.”

Economic collapse? Bah! Unemployment? Feh! Health care reform? Meh! Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan? Eh. Prospect of nuclear arms in Iran & North Korea? Ho-hum. Pluto now classed as a dwarf planet? WHAT?!?! We have to DO something about THAT, by God!!!”

Truthfully, classification is arbitrary. It doesn’t really matter what it’s called whether a planet or dwarf planet or asteroid. The hard facts are the objects size, position, and momentum. Technically the connotations of an object’s classification implies certain constraints on the sizes and possible paths. To a layman there’s little difference between the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet and Pluto as a planet. To a scientist the specifics of the differences are important enough to classify it differently from the planets.

It’s not necessarily detrimental. It may be better to have a single consolidated view of our Universe, however as you can see throughout scientific history there have always been opposing views of how we should understand the Universe.

@mattbrowne
Spreading the word? Urging people to be rational?

I’ve been reading a book by Carl Sagan on the very same subject – science, pseudoscience and superstition, and how to tell them apart. But the tragedy is that the people who really need to read books like that tend never to read books like that.

@mattbrowne Well, I guess I agree in that the ignorance of what science is actually about is appalling. People seem to only remember that they mixed some stuff together in test tubes and it made smoke. There is a serious issue with the quality of science education in this country that certainly feeds both the evolution and global warming deniers and these politicians. The problem is, even if we teach the scientific method of solving a single problem, what we don’t teach well is how the results of a number of experiments and observations are related and are knit together into cohesive theories (which are not synonymous with hypotheses).

@derekfnord – I guarantee you there will be more unemployment when creationists become a majority. First world countries need science-literate people. We can’t go back to hunting and gathering. There will be health problems when vaccinations get rejected big style. There will be more Taliban-infested Afghanistans if dark age superstitions keep spreading.

@Shuttle128
If it’s an empirical fact that Pluto is different from the planets proper on grounds that make it worthwhile to distinguish them – and it is – then this classification is not something one should call arbitrary.

@Fyrius – To counter this dangerous trend we would also have to show religious people a way how rationality and religion can coexist. Some time ago @gussnarp recommended a website maintained by Kenneth Miller (a biology professor), see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

I’m reading his first book called Finding Darwin’s God right now. It’s excellent. He’s describing the root cause of the anti-science syndrome and offers a remedy.

@mattbrowne Someday I’ll have to read that. I’ve only seen video of him giving a lecture.

@mattbrowne And what is the root cause and it’s remedy?

@Fyrius Yes, it is beneficial to classify things differently if it is “worthwhile to distinguish them.” To a layman it is not worthwhile to distinguish them. It is not beneficial for someone who does not work directly with these terms to describe them with a classification that makes simple things more complicated unless they specifically seek to enlighten themselves.

The problem I see is that people are presupposing that classifying things in a detailed manner is always a good thing. It is not always beneficial to everyone. Now, I’m not saying that those who oppose the change are right to try to change the IAU’s classification. They are perfectly capable of using their own classification without imposing it on the IAU. The only problem is that they must now translate their classification when speaking with someone of a different mindset. This happens all the time between scientific paradigms and even common things like between two auto repair schools of thought. It does not detract from the progress of science or society to hold different classifications. This is why I say it’s arbitrary.

This doesn’t change the fact that laymen are trying to have their say in scientific matters. This is the heart of anti-scientism and I think Matt is right to bring this up. I’m just saying that it’s not necessary or even inherently good for all people to adhere to the scientific classification.

@mattbrowne
Actually, as you probably know, I don’t agree at all that we should be taking the position that religion is okay but all the other superstition is bad. It might trick the religious people into accepting science without giving up their world view, but it’s not honest or consistent, and frankly I find it rather patronising.

Religion relies on the supernatural, the unverifiable, the ostensibly factually incorrect or all of the above. Each of these things is fundamentally contradictory to everything science stands for.

Then again, it will probably take more persuasion that any one of us could muster to get religious people to prefer science to religion if given the choice, so the more desirable alternative of getting religion out of people’s heads and into the musea is probably less feasible than letting them have their beliefs but still take science seriously. They can find ways around the inherent inconsistencies.

@Shuttle128
Yes, the laypeople don’t want to bother with advanced astronomy, and they don’t have to. But they only need to understand that Pluto is not a planet. That’s not complicated at all. Just let them call Pluto “something else” if the proper nomenclature is too complicated for them.
But allowing for two different definitions of “planet”, one for laypeople and one for actual astronomers, is a recipe for ignorant misunderstandings. We’re already having that problem with the ignoramuses who would tell you evolution is “only” a theory.

The only people who I recall having anything close to a realistic reason to complain are astrologers – they started bitching two or three years ago. It made a lot of them look a little foolish – lots of their texts are now outdated. They regard planets and asteroids as having distinctly different properties. I can’t understand why anyone else would care about “ranking” of stellar bodies.

@O – According to Kenneth Miller the root cause is the introduction of a two-option system making people choose between atheism/science and religion/anti-science. Here’s a quote from one of his interviews:

“But pretending that the intelligent design explanation is a scientific one is a violation of everything we mean and understand by science. Bringing that idea into the school classroom seems innocuous enough, because all you would do is tell students, well, there’s either the evolution explanation or the design explanation. But consider the implications of that. If we present the idea of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, students, who are very bright, are going to understand something right away, and that is, basically, you’ve got your atheist theory over here and you have your Bible or God-friendly theory over there.

What it does is to falsely cast evolution in light of an inherently atheistic idea. This is the goal of the intelligent-design movement, indirectly to tell students that either you turn your back on the faith that you’ve been brought up with in order to embrace the scientific mainstream, or to be true to your faith you have to reject modern science. That’s a false choice. It does disservice to religion, and it does disservice to science, and I think it is a terrible way to proceed with scientific education.”

“Coyne [and other outspoken atheists] seems to think that the message of science is clear. There is no room for faith among scientists, and scientists who are religious are intellectually dishonest. In reality, he should know that science is and has been done well, honestly, and effectively by people of faith, and that continues to be the case. Like Coyne, I would object strenuously to any attempt to twist or distort science to make it acceptable to religious views, but I also object to attempts to twist science to make it conform to anti-religious views like those held by Coyne.”

“But any rational person looking at the world would conclude, as did Darwin, that it was not designed by a beneficent God. As Richard Dawkins has noted, the world and universe look precisely as if they reflect not a caring designer, but ‘blind, pitiless, indifference.’ Curiously, for Coyne it’s just fine to use the “authority of science” to make conclusions about the presence or absence of “design,” and even to parrot Richard Dawkins on completely non-scientific qualities such as “pity” and “indifference.” Apparently it’s legitimate to mix a philosophy in with your science — as long as it’s the right kind philosophy, the one he happens to hold. To note that we live in a universe bursting with evolutionary possibilities would be dishonest, but an assessment of “blind, pitiless indifference” isn’t philosophy at all?”

“One can indeed embrace science in every respect, and still ask a deeper question. Why does science work? Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect? The true vow of a scientist is to practice honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions of why we are here, and whether existence has a purpose. Those questions are genuine and important, even if they are not scientific ones, and I believe they are worth answering. To me, those answers lie in faith. Others find their answers elsewhere, but our science is the same. That is why science works, why it provides a unifying force between people and cultures, and ultimately why scientific rationalism is a gift worth defending.”

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/

The remedy is to free religious anti-science people from the “mindset prison” the religious right has created. Don’t force everyone to become an atheist. Let this be a personal choice while people fully embrace science and respect scientific authority.

@Fyrius – I think there can be forms of religions without superstitions and without ostensibly factual incorrectness. My faith would be an example. Other examples would include people like Kenneth Miller, Alister McGrath and John Lennox.

@mattbrowne Watching a lecture with him now. I hope he is not another Dawkins. That guy is just ridiculing any notion of God.

@DarkScribe: Oh, so in other words, they reacted essentially the same way they did when Pluto was discovered… complained because it made them look like idiots, since their charts didn’t account for it. ;-)

@O – No, he’s not like Dawkins. Kenneth Miller doesn’t resort to polemics. He’s a Christian scientist who testified at the Dover trial against the “intelligent” design movement.

i love dawkins. he’s right on the mark

@ragingloli – Yes, and the young-earth creationists and the intelligent designers love him too. Dawkins did them a great favor. It makes finding new recruits so much easier.

@derekfnord @DarkScribe: Oh, so in other words, they reacted essentially the same way they did when Pluto was discovered… complained because it made them look like idiots, since their charts didn’t account for it. ;-)

No, not really. There had been astrological rumours of Pluto well before its astronomical discovery. (Based on eccentric orbits of other bodies.) It is one thing often raised to validate their “scientific” status. “We knew about Pluto first”. Some Astrologers still use other “non-existent” heavenly bodies in calculations – confident that one day they will discovered.

@DarkScribe – Just curious, do the astrologers embrace Eris? If yes, do they have to rewrite some of their horoscopes? Did they know about Eris first too?

@mattbrowne _Just curious, do the astrologers embrace Eris? _

Some do, many don’t. There is no consensus in Astrology, they squabble among each other as much as psychologists etc., do. Some use every known asteroid, others find asteroids to be nonsense. They can’t even agree on things like sidereal or tropical systems. The closest thing to “science” in Astrology would probably be Ebertin’s Cosmobiology.

how influences the fact that Pluto is a dwarf-planet the fact that Pluto is a planet?

@Fyrius – Just to give you an example what I meant earlier:

Jesus may not have walked on water as the Bible claims but rather skated on ice formed through a freak cold spell, a scientific study has suggested. Rare atmospheric and water conditions could have caused ice to form on the freshwater Sea of Galilee. The research shows a period of cooler weather swept what is now northern Israel from 1,500 to 2,600 years ago. Sub-zero temperatures could have caused the formation of ice thick enough to support the weight of a man. The story of Jesus walking on water is recorded in three of the four Gospels, but Professor Doron Nof, an oceanographer from Florida State University insists his research points to a scientific rather than miraculous explanation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4881108.stm

No superstition. No scientific nonsense. I’m not saying this particular theory is what happened. It might have been dehydration experienced by the observers on the boat or something else.

@Christian95 – Very often classifications form a tree/taxonomy. Dwarf planet and “full” planet would be both planets “in a broader” sense. Sometimes our language is a little imprecise.

For a better overview look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_body

argh I wrote a huge post and it was all erased, wtf?

I absolutely think that the public should be involved in the field of science. Politicians therefor would be involved at the level of representing the public, not at pursuing their own agendas simply for politics.

Why should the public be involved?

One reason is that the field of science can be a very closed community. And we know by research that when this happens internal bias can be a problem. I can think of one very good example that exemplifies this but as I am not well versed I should probably leave it out and allow you to think of examples for yourself.

Another reason is that science affects the people and sometimes it does so according to popular culture instead of by science itself. One example would be scientific racism. There have been times when it has run rampant. It is nice for the public to be able to identify this and speak out.

Do I believe Pluto should be called a planet just because the public wants it? Absolutely not. However I do believe that if the public gets so overwhelmingly angry the topic deserves more attention. It deserves more research and even moreso it deserves more attention to educating the public about why this decision was made so that they can make their arguments at an educated level vs. an emotional one.

Furthermore, just because someone is an expert does not mean we should immediately accept their information on said topic. We should however pay it greater attention.

@mattbrowne
Well, congratulations, you have found a way to account for one of the apparent scientific impossibilities in the bible in a non-supernatural way. Well done.
That leaves only a few dozen left to go. Up next are turning water into wine, multiplying bread and fish, a sea splitting up and closing up again at convenient times, people living to be many centuries old, speaking in tongues, a virgin giving birth, a man coming back to life after dying of crucifixion, a single man living in the bronze age managing to build a seaworthy boat large enough to accommodate for a pair of every single animal species on earth, a single man in the bronze age even having a clue what kinds of animals and how many different species there are all over the world, outer space being filled with water and the sky containing “floodgates” to let it through, regular water turning into “holy water” when a man with a pointy hat says so, and not to forget, the entire universe being deliberately created and overseen by a sentient being just like us.
And that’s just a brief overview.

Not to even mention what’s in all the other religions.

And suppose that you would manage to explain each of these things in a way that makes them not contradict everything we know about the world. Suppose you could explain all the miracles as clever confidence tricks. Then what would you be left with? If you take out the supernatural, what is left to religion?

Secular philosophy. And some tales from ancient history of questionable reliability.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for replacing religion with secular philosophy. But some people might not be so cool with it.

I think it is time for me to reclassify my sock draw.

There is usually more underwear then socks.

I am going to call it my underwear drawer from now on.

@ChazMaz I disagree. That drawer is traditionally called a sock drawer. Now we would have misunderstandings between us when discussing your drawer and its contents.

@Shuttle128 I don’t want to discuss what’s in @ChazMaz‘s drawers.

I might be suffering from anti-sock syndrome.

@mattbrowne Jesus may not have walked on water as the Bible claims but rather skated on ice formed through a freak cold spell, a scientific study has suggested.

Come on, get real. If the water was frozen he would have had to force his way through the crowds of kids skating on it – not be the only person out there.

Jesus on Ice at the Madison Square Garden? I think it could work.

@mrentropy I bet they’d sell out every night. It could be a big touring show. Every arena has some big evangelical event rent the place out at least once a year, and probably 3 or 4 ice shows, why not put it together? I think you’re really on to something there.

We have something like that here in Florida.

It’s called the Holy Land Experience.
6 days a week, I believe 3 times a day, you can watch Jesus get scourged, then nailed to the cross.

They also have a lovely food court.

i wonder how jesus would react if he saw how his suffering is being commercialised to milk money from the impressionable and gullible masses.

@ChazMaz I’ve heard of that, didn’t know you got to actually watch Jesus get scourged. Fantastic. How long has it been around, is it in the Orlando area?

Here in Ohio we just have Big Butter Jesus and the Creation Museum across the river in Kentucky.

Yes in Orlando. Trinity Broadcasting purchased it a few years ago.

They got it for a song from another religious origination that could not keep it afloat.
I do not believe it is holding its own still. But they inject enough money into it and it is a good marking platform for their network.

@ChazMaz Yes, that’s the one I was thinking of, I remember hearing about it opening shortly after I left the area. Their website is classic.

Yea, “experience life during biblical times.”

Where are all the black folk?

Black? I’d settle for a Jew or an Arab, anybody other than WASPS, actually. Lots of WASPS running around the Holy Land in the first century, you know.

@gussnarp Lots of WASPS running around the Holy Land in the first century, you know.

Wasps? First century?

I think that you input the wrong data into the Tardis.

@DarkScribe Sarcasm.

@RedPowerLady – argh I wrote a huge post and it was all erased, wtf?

Well, on occasions this has happened to me as well. The system then forced me to log on a second time. Can the mods shed some light on this?

Yes, I do believe too that if the public gets so overwhelmingly angry the topic deserves more attention. I like the notion of ‘honorary planet’. Pluto remains special after all. It was discovered first. It comes closer to the Sun than Neptune from time to time, something no other large Kuiper Belt object does.

I think the IAU should have hired a public relation specialist before going public. He or she might have been able to soften the blow. Looking back at the angry church in 1615 if Galileo had had more knowledge about the universe he could have sold his findings in a better way. Earth is a very special planet in the solar system. Our solar system is special because there are no gas giants close to its sun. Our solar system is special because it resides in a special area of our galaxy beneficial to life. Our sun is special because it’s a metal-rich yellow dwarf. It has a long life and is hot enough. Yellow dwarfs offer ideal habitable zones. Even our galaxy is special. No active supermassive black hole. Plenty of areas to give birth to new suns. Metal-rich dust. No collision at the present time with other spiral galaxies and so forth.

The problem was that the church wanted to see humanity and Earth as something special. Well, to me they are.

@gussnarp Sarcasm.

Are you suggesting that you don’t have a Tardis, or are stealing sarcasm’s identity?

I was hoping you had a Tardis – imagine the practical jokes you could pull with that.

(I was going to hire a time machine once – but they demanded that I returned it before I took it. It all got too confusing.)

@Fyrius – Yes, I can try to explain each of these things in a way that makes them not contradict everything we know about the world.

Here’s one example about the so-called miracle cures:

http://www.fluther.com/disc/57681/im-looking-for-scientific-answers-how-did-the-stories-about

See also my PM. Maybe it can help to avoid misunderstandings.

Wait, are we going to get into time travel on this thread too? Maybe Plutonians went back in time to cause Pluto to be reclassified so that we would not discover their advanced, but peace loving and entirely defenseless civilization.

@mattbrowne Maybe they should just teach kids the history of Pluto. The first of the large Kuiper Belt objects to be discovered, because of its unusual orbit and large size it was thought to be the ninth planet in our solar system until the Kuiper Belt and Pluto’s relationship to it were discovered. Makes it sound pretty special to me.

@gussnarp – Exactly! Pluto is so special to us that NASA launched New Horizons on 19 January 2006, a robotic spacecraft mission currently en route to the honorary planet Pluto. It is expected to be the first spacecraft to fly by and study the wonderful dwarf planet Pluto and its moons. Eris might be larger, but it’s a priority to visit Pluto first. New Mexico’s politicians will love it.

@DarkScribe – It’s Professor Doron Nof’s story not my story. I find dehydration of the disciples more likely. They got lost. They ran out of water. No radio set. No GPS. Or it was a fata morgana which is a real phenomenon and can observed almost anywhere. Maybe they saw something like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fata_Morgana_Belgium.jpg

@mattbrowne
I’m sure you can find a scientific explanation for each and every miracle in any holy text or even the flying brooms in harry potter.
But the real questions are, do these explanation match with the historical record?
And are these explanation really more likely than the miracle stories being fictional, e.g. great deeds and events invented by the authors of the text to elevate the described personality to superhuman or even divine status?

@ragingloli – Commercializing and milking money from the impressionable and gullible masses is a very unchristian thing to do. The point is, atheist fundamentalists try to portray religion in the worst possible way. All ideals (divine, transcendent, humanistic, liberal) are capable of being abused. Just look at what happened after the French Revolution.

Many atheists are in denial about the darker side of atheism. There’s plenty of abuse. Does this make atheism an evil belief system? Of course not.

Alistair McGrath remarked that well-meaning atheists should not copy the vices of religious fundamentalism.

@mattbrowne Many atheists are in denial about the darker side of atheism.

Tell me about it? Is there something that I should denying that I don’t know about?

Something else I can’t quite fathom – why are you trying to deny all the miracles? Are you trying to prove that Jesus wasn’t the son of God – just another fruit loop on a mission?

@ragingloli – My point is, in my belief system the miracles (as a supernatural phenomenon) never occurred.

@mattbrowne
your point also is, so I assume, that these miracles happened as natural phenomenon interpreted or elevated by the observers/authors as supernatural.
my point is, is that really more likely than these events being fictional in the first place?

@DarkScribe – I’d like to quote Alistair McGrath, a Christian theologian, who also holds a Ph.D in molecular biophysics, to give you an example:

“The 20th century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerance and violence of that century were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence. The Communist Russian, Chinese and Cambodian governments all rejected religion and belief in God and between these three atheistic governments, over 100 million people were murdered. A median death toll in Stalin’s regime, from 1924 to 1853 – 29 years – is 20 million people. Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, would say that these regimes might have killed that many people, but never in the name of atheism. However, it is well documented that the Soviet Union used the firing squad to force people to choose between religion and atheism, furthermore between 1918 and 1941 90% of the church in Russia were demolished and 90% of the clergy disappeared. While Christianity has bloodied her hands in violence and oppression, the alternative, a secular atheistic society has an even worse track record.”

Most of the atheists I know are benign, and only a few resort to the same kind of polemics used by Richard Dawkins.

my point is also, that while your case could be made for individual cases, you can not generalise and say that all miraculous events in the bible happened as natural phenomenon and then were interpreted or elevated to divinity.

@ragingloli – Yes, there are several explanations as outlined in my other question

http://www.fluther.com/disc/57681/im-looking-for-scientific-answers-how-did-the-stories-about/

Here are a few that come to mind:

1) The bible as such is fake and it was fabricated after the First Council of Nicaea so that the Roman Emperor Constantine and the newly founded church could apply social control.

2) The bible is real and was written earlier, but the gospels are fake and the four evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John made up the stories about miracle cures performed by Jesus.

3) The gospels are real, but some oral traditions are fake and some jokester was spamming oral traditions with fantastic wizardry out of thin air.

4) The miracle cures performed by Jesus were real (perhaps exaggerated), but miracles in a strict sense didn’t happen. All cures have a scientific explanation.

@mattbrowne _I’d like to quote Alistair McGrath, _

I guarantee that a lot of Christians wet the bed at age five. Does that mean that ALL Christians are bed wetters? If you apply Alistair McGrath’s logic then they do.

(Christians have a lot of evil history and over a longer period of time. The inquisition, witch burnings, heresy trials. The Bible is a blood soaked licence to commit violent and unjust acts.)

@mattbrowne I don’t really like where this thread is headed, I, as an atheist, have no desire to make you be an atheist, and I realize you are just defending your position, but I have to defend mine now. The soviets and their allies do not represent a “dark side of atheism”. They may have said that they were killing people for believing in God, but:
a. that was a small portion of the number of deaths attributed to them (in fact, most of the deaths usually attributed to the Chinese governments were people who died of starvation due to pure mismanagement of resources).
b. there was no atheist authority telling them what to do, and the ideology driving them was not atheism, but a misguided interpretation of Marxism. Some may have been killed for being believers, but they were not killed in the name of or under the authority of atheism, they were killed in the name of and under the authority of Marxism.

@gussnarp – I agree, we should return to the discussion of Pluto and the anti-science syndrome. We should just realize (to quote McGrath again) that gross simplifications about religions will delay and defer a solution of humanity’s real problems. We should look at causes of social divisions and religion is only one along with a myriad of other factors.

@DarkScribe – Highly selective perceptions about Christianity are counterproductive. They delay and defer a solution of humanity’s real problems. It would be helpful if all atheists become part of the solution instead of being part of the problem sustaining this unfortunate two-option system making people choose between atheism/science and religion/anti-science. To use Dawkins own terminology: the two-option system is a meme which has spread like a virus infecting too many people. But there are more and more people who promote a three-option system, a variation with great evolutionary potential and as a meme it keeps spreading. Yay. Spiritually progressive people unite dealing with anti-science syndrome. Religious people are not being forced to give up religion when they want to embrace science. That’s the real issue here.

To quote Kenneth Miller once again:

“One can indeed embrace science in every respect, and still ask a deeper question. Why does science work? Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect? The true vow of a scientist is to practice honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions of why we are here, and whether existence has a purpose. Those questions are genuine and important, even if they are not scientific ones, and I believe they are worth answering. To me, those answers lie in faith. Others find their answers elsewhere, but our science is the same. That is why science works, why it provides a unifying force between people and cultures, and ultimately why scientific rationalism is a gift worth defending.”

@mattbrowne Yes it forced me to re-login in as well. I’d like to know why it happens too, mods? Just so I can prevent it if possible.

I think a PR specialist would have been a great idea and I’m surprised they did not think of it beforehand. I think you worded it so well by still allowing it to be special. If the public would have heard that message along with some education on the change then perhaps there would have been less uproar.

@RedPowerLady – It’s a good idea to use a different text editor when creating longer Fluther answers. When you’re simply copy-paste it into the Fluther text box. When the forced re-login occurs the text isn’t lost. You can login and paste it again. Still, I’d consider this either a Fluther bug or a “user-unfriendly” Fluther feature. Can you PM one of the mods?

@mattbrowne I certainly will PM one of the mods, great suggestion.
I’ll consider writing in another text editor but man that is a pain in the butt.

I think there are two completely different issues here.

Since you mention evolution: evolution is a fact, whether people want to believe it or not. Just like the Earth is round. The Church may say the Earth is flat, and burn everybody who disagrees, and Creationists can say we derive from Mud and not Monkeys, but it won’t change anything.

The story with Pluto is different. Classifying an astral body as a “planet” is arbitrary, and based on our own rules. If there were little green men on Mars, they could have their own classification system, considering the Moon a planet, and differentiating between Gas Giants (which they would call “minor suns”) and rocky bodies (which for them would be the only real “planets”). What I mean is that our notion of a planet is man-made, and has to do with how we teach Astronomy at school, not a debate about Pluto’s size or trajectory.

We know exactly what Pluto is: one of thousands of pieces of frozen rock in the Kuiper Belt. We could call it a planet (like we did for decades), but then we’d have to find names for all those other rocks, and kids at school would have to memorise all of them. Or we could just say it’s not a planet, and stick to our 4 rocks – 4 gas giants system, with numerous “moons” around some of them (ie bodies that circle other bodies).

So it’s not really a scientific debate. Science knows exactly what’s going on, it’s just trying to find an easy way to describe it to the layman.

@Jack79 – Most churches (at least outside the US) say the Earth is very old and evolution is real. Most churches also respect scientific authorities. Most state parliaments respect scientific authorities. This in my opinion includes the re-classification of Pluto. California, New Mexico and Illinois are just disgraceful exceptions. But I agree the communication part by IAU was handled very poorly.

Yes but the difference is that whether Pluto is classified as a planet or not is not really a debate about what it is. Scientists more or less agree about what it is, the name is the only question. This is the equivalent of everyone accepting Darwin’s theory and debating about whether it should be called “evolution”, “ape origination” or “darwinism”.

A more interesting debate is going on among biologists (since you mentioned evolution). They are thinking of completely reclassifying species into different categories that would make more sense. Not sure of the details, but I guess new knowledge means we have to rethink the way we view the world. Not long ago biologists classified dolphins as “fish”, so I guess there’s a good point there. And botanologists have an even harder time than that.

@Jack79 – I would expect that comparative genomics leads to even better taxonomies.