Pluto conspiracy

[Dalhousie]

....they are different to the 8 inner planets in many ways, so warrant a different definition. The IAU took the correct course and gave them a different category.

Pluto has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, is internally differentiated, has a range of active surface processes, some driven internal processes,  satellites, diverse tectonics, a relatively young surface, and an atmosphere.  How is that different to the other planets?

The IAU decision was not made after peer review, broad-based and comprehensive discussion in the literature just just a vote amongst a rump of delegates at the tail end of a conference.

[Zakalwe]

I find him a pretentious git. Unlike Sagan, he has done very little science, he is now an educator, rather than a scientist.  Nothing wrong with that, but he gets passed off as an expert on everything, which he isn't.  His ignorance in some areas, such as philosophy, is appalling.

Does he put himself forward as an expert in Philosophy? If not, then that's like castigating him for his ignorance in repairing car engines, sky-diving or anything else for that matter.
I quite like NdGT, and I find that he comes across as an excellent presenter. He has a good turn of phrase and is very comfortable in front of audiences.

The new Cosmos, however, I could not get on with. To be fair, the original Cosmos series (along with Attenbrough's Life on Earth) stand as the two programs that awakened a lifelong love of science in me. I can still remember watching Cosmos as a kid growing up in the middle of Ireland and realising that there was so much more than my fairly isolated life had shown me thus far.  The new version didn't float my boat at all. It just didn't have the magic that Sagan, for all his awkward vocalisations and appearance, had.
 

[Luke Pemberton]

Pluto has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, is internally differentiated, has a range of active surface processes, some driven internal processes,  satellites, diverse tectonics, a relatively young surface, and an atmosphere.  How is that different to the other planets?

Asteroid 2004 BL86 has its own satellite, so does that make asteroid 2004 BL86 planet by your definition? The problem with classifying objects is that there is always that inevitable Venn diagram where characteristics from one class overlap with those of another. It is the same in biology, look at the pill bug and wood louse.

Pluto is smaller than our own Moon, sits in part of the solar system where objects have an inclined elliptical orbit to the Sun. As we discover more about the solar system we could potentially have hundreds of planets. It is far easier and more sensible to limit the planets to a few based on size and orbital parameters, and classify the remaining objects as dwarf planets. The classification is pragmatic and sensible based on clear criteria and rather decisive criteria. If we begin classifying in science based on a plethora of criteria it simply gets messy. I would say the things you have described are sub criteria.

[gillianren]

Does he put himself forward as an expert in Philosophy? If not, then that's like castigating him for his ignorance in repairing car engines, sky-diving or anything else for that matter.
I quite like NdGT, and I find that he comes across as an excellent presenter. He has a good turn of phrase and is very comfortable in front of audiences.

I don't know about philosophy, since it didn't come up at the talk he gave at my alma mater.  But he freely admitted his ignorance of history, though he did get a little snippy with me when I suggested that the reason I had known a certain piece of information and he hadn't was that I'd had really good history teachers.  ("Are you saying I didn't?" were his exact words.)  Actually, part of the point of bringing it up was the fact that everyone is ignorant of something.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Everybody is ignorant about almost everything.

This is inevitable. The total sum of human knowledge vastly exceeds what a single individual can learn in a lifetime.
The total sum of potential knowledge about the universe that can be acquired, eventually, is far greater than that.

[Peter B]

Pluto has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, is internally differentiated, has a range of active surface processes, some driven internal processes,  satellites, diverse tectonics, a relatively young surface, and an atmosphere.  How is that different to the other planets?

Asteroid 2004 BL86 has its own satellite, so does that make asteroid 2004 BL86 planet by your definition? The problem with classifying objects is that there is always that inevitable Venn diagram where characteristics from one class overlap with those of another. It is the same in biology, look at the pill bug and wood louse.

Pluto is smaller than our own Moon, sits in part of the solar system where objects have an inclined elliptical orbit to the Sun. As we discover more about the solar system we could potentially have hundreds of planets. It is far easier and more sensible to limit the planets to a few based on size and orbital parameters, and classify the remaining objects as dwarf planets. The classification is pragmatic and sensible based on clear criteria and rather decisive criteria. If we begin classifying in science based on a plethora of criteria it simply gets messy. I would say the things you have described are sub criteria.

This for me is the main reason to not count Pluto as one of the main planets in the Solar System. The eight planets Sunward of it sit in pretty much the same orbital plane, and Pluto very conspicuously doesn't. That suggests to me that different processes were involved in its formation as opposed to the Inner Eight. And that, in turn, suggests to me a good reason to exclude it from the List of Planets.

[smartcooky]

Asteroid 2004 BL86 has its own satellite, so does that make asteroid 2004 BL86 planet by your definition? The problem with classifying objects is that there is always that inevitable Venn diagram where characteristics from one class overlap with those of another. It is the same in biology, look at the pill bug and wood louse.

Yes. Off topic, but ever heard of a Thylacine?

Debate has gone on for years over whether this animal should be classified as a dog or a cat, even in its two most common descriptions; "Tasmanian Tiger" and "Marsupial Dog"

[bknight]

I noticed this today:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/beyond-pluto-2nd-target-chosen-for-new-horizons-probe/ar-BBmcVxo
The extended mission if approved due to have another encounter four more years.