30th August 2006, 4:44 PM
So there are a lot of things in the news these days about a big vote about what defines "planetness". One proposed rule set was "if it revolves around a star and is not revolving around another satellite (the gravity "barycenter" is not inside that other satellite, meaning they are revolving around each other more or less), and if it is massive enough that it's gravity overcomes it's own shape to make it spherical, it's a planet. The one they actually voted on was another set of rules saying, if I remember right, it has to orbit the sun, have cleared out it's "surrounding neighborhood", and some others, whatever.
There are a few things I have to say about this. First of all, as many scientists are saying, this really is pointless. Whether you call Pluto a planet or not, it is what it is. Call it a whale, as in redefine whale to mean "marine mammal or icy rock beyond the orbit of Neptune". This also doesn't help science at all as far as I can tell. This isn't a new discovery. They didn't find out something new about Pluto making them reconsider. They are changing the definition, the data hasn't yet changed.
There is no "planetness" somewhere "out there". It's a word. It is merely us saying "this idea represents this", instantiating a class to help us deal with the stream of otherwise meaningless information that is the universe. I know this is all obvious to anyone who's ever even had a passing thought about language, but the news doesn't seem to get that. If we wanted, we could, instead of defining the rock itself, define a carved out shape of the rock and some space to the west of it as a thing we call Pluto. At any rate, this won't change anything about the object, it'll just change what we call it. And so, why is it that big a deal if we call it something else? The only real reason is to make information easier to manage. Somehow I'm not sure this'll do anything of the sort. I'm fine with a rough definition of planet that is pretty much arbitrary myself.
That said, there's an easy solution to this. Leave the science to the scientists, but in cases like "what do we call it?", why not start up a new craze in the form of "name that celestial object!", the new hit show translated into every language where everyone on the planet gets to vote on a selection of names, and whether or not something is a planet or a star or whatever. Since it won't affect the science or anything (if they call a moon-like object a "star" it won't change the fact that it orbits other things and isn't a nuclear inferno), it seems fine by me. Also, it'll get people into science in a more hands-on way. Make people feel like idiots if they don't care about it too, that helps.
There are a few things I have to say about this. First of all, as many scientists are saying, this really is pointless. Whether you call Pluto a planet or not, it is what it is. Call it a whale, as in redefine whale to mean "marine mammal or icy rock beyond the orbit of Neptune". This also doesn't help science at all as far as I can tell. This isn't a new discovery. They didn't find out something new about Pluto making them reconsider. They are changing the definition, the data hasn't yet changed.
There is no "planetness" somewhere "out there". It's a word. It is merely us saying "this idea represents this", instantiating a class to help us deal with the stream of otherwise meaningless information that is the universe. I know this is all obvious to anyone who's ever even had a passing thought about language, but the news doesn't seem to get that. If we wanted, we could, instead of defining the rock itself, define a carved out shape of the rock and some space to the west of it as a thing we call Pluto. At any rate, this won't change anything about the object, it'll just change what we call it. And so, why is it that big a deal if we call it something else? The only real reason is to make information easier to manage. Somehow I'm not sure this'll do anything of the sort. I'm fine with a rough definition of planet that is pretty much arbitrary myself.
That said, there's an easy solution to this. Leave the science to the scientists, but in cases like "what do we call it?", why not start up a new craze in the form of "name that celestial object!", the new hit show translated into every language where everyone on the planet gets to vote on a selection of names, and whether or not something is a planet or a star or whatever. Since it won't affect the science or anything (if they call a moon-like object a "star" it won't change the fact that it orbits other things and isn't a nuclear inferno), it seems fine by me. Also, it'll get people into science in a more hands-on way. Make people feel like idiots if they don't care about it too, that helps.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)