Chris L Peterson wrote:
> Maybe there is no science behind it- the whole decision really has
> nothing to do with science, after all. Maybe he's just taking the
> reasonable position that the IAU shouldn't create a definition for
> "planet" at all.
Agreed. I read that there was a dynamist camp and a planetary geology
camp. The dynamist model, that the IAU resolution appears to be based
on, is the one I personally find most useful as an amateur. But I
never read a clear explanation of the reasoning of the opposing
position for an alternative affirmative taxonomy.
P.S. - Stern has made a few comments to the media impeaching the IAU
resolution, using IMHO a plainly erroneous interpretation of the
amibguity of "orbit clearing." But impeaching the opposing position is
different from presenting one's own affirmative definition.