Word is the proposal on the table at the International Astronomical Union meeting in Prague calls for a new definition of planet that would widen the category to include Ceres, Charon and "Xena." I say, bring it on!
Why?
Because change is good. It sends a great message to schoolkids everywhere: Science does not stand still; there's nothing wrong with revising our list of planets every now and then. Mix it up a bit. I especially like the elevation of Charon from mere moon to planet, making for the system's first double-planet. Tres cool.
- Log in to post comments
I'm all for scientists wanting to mix it up a little bit ... heck, I think we should make some of those Goth chicks on suicidegirls.com honorary scientists just so the public can think we are edgier ... but what message is it sending to school kids when they realize scientists can't even figure out what a planet is?
Cash
The message that science is about ongoing search for knowledge, not dogma. It's a very healthy sign that scientists are willing to put established classifications in question, and revise them, when new data crops up.
The alternative is we all hang up our lab coats and say the world is this way because our predecessors said so; why bother try to learn anything new. What a great message for the kids.
The difference between a "Planet" and a "rock in orbit" is obviously in question anyways with the inclusion of Pluto. The only question is whether we change the definition to include Pluto, or to exclude it.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to point out that the classifications scientists use are pretty arbitrary anyways. The concept of "species", political classifications, and even the basic definition of life (bacteria vs. virus vs. prion) are subject to redefinition as new concepts are discovered. All of these classifications, groups and boundries are useful for understanding, but are largely imaginary divisions scientists agree to.
And that's about as post-modernist I want to get with science. ;)
While I agree that this is controversial, our definition of a planet is rather outdated. To me, a planet is any large body, which orbits a star, on a contast orbit, and has at least one satellite of its own. This would likely establish many more objects as planets.
Exactly, LWF, you've hit the nail right on the head! Bacterial species classifications are a great example. If only because of the amount of lateral gene transfer going on in there, it's futile to want a definitive, carved in stone classification system. And it's a lesson we're learning in all sciences, I think, that the natural world isn't a rigid system composed of nice discrete entitites we can put in neat little boxes. It's all shades of gray. Humans make classifications to make apprehending (and discussing) it all easier, but ultimately we have to keep in mind that the boundaries defined by humans are all, in the final analysis, quite arbitrary, and as such are subject to revision according to the evolution of knowledge and ideas. Kids need to know that.
Is this a post-modernist attitude? Eep, I had no idea! Get it off me!
Except that would include a great number of quite small asteroids (which have moonlets) and boot Venus (which has no moons).
If the asteroid has a constant orbit around the sun, and has a moonlet, perhaps it deserves to be considered a planetoid. I would not have a problem with that.