|
|
Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <200920061215416784%jabergeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Joe Bergeron <jabergeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Taxonomy is a big part of science. This is taxonomy.
> In the early stages of a subject, taxonomy is often important. For
> example, sorting out the stars from the planets was very important in
> getting a clue as to how the universe is set up. But a taxonomy is
> only as scientifically important if things fall into the different
> categories for an interesting reason. If you have to fiddle with the
> rules, it's a sign that you're not actually making an important
> distinction.
Classifying Pluto as a body similar to other Kuiper Belt objects is not
bad taxonomy.
But taxonomy is irrelevant to whether or not Pluto is a "planet"; as
others have noted, giving little weight to the distinction between the
terrestrial planets and the gas giants, and a large weight to the
distinction between both of them and the Kuiper Belt Objects is
strange.
And astronomy is indeed not in its "early stages"; taxonomy was
important in zoology and botany before we could sequence DNA, but the
study of celestial bodies faces no analogous obstacle.
The designation of Pluto as a planet or not instead relates to a social
function of the IAU. Planets, comets, and asteroids are named in an
orderly process, to prevent there from being one set of names in one
group of countries, and a different set of names used in countries
which differ politically, culturally, or religiously. This avoids
confusion.
With many KBOs comparable in size to Pluto, treating Pluto as a major
member of our solar system, and the others as much less important *is*
misleading.
Setting a threshhold for planethood below the size of Pluto, thus
allowing for several new planets in our solar system, makes our time
seem a more exciting one for astronomy... but blatant plays for grant
money could hamper the esteem in which astronomers are held. So perhaps
they have made the right decision after all, although I would urge
caution before so drastic a step.
Perhaps, fifty years from now, we might have gotten *used* to the idea,
if the IAU, then, finally withdrew planetary status from Pluto... or
recognized some new planets in addition to Pluto, once the extent of
the Kuiper Belt was better understood.
John Savard
|
|