posted
The IAU voted to redefine the term planet, so that Pluto no longer qualifies as one. I don't think many people will agree with this. Sure, it doesn't really count as a planet, but it should stay one for historical reasons. I can't believe this! It is now a dwarf Planet!
What is interesting about this debate is how many of the scientists engaged in it seem to think that science is dictating what the definition of "planet" should be. In truth, there is very little that is scientifically testable about the meaning of an english word. There is no experiment you could make to determine if the meaning of "planet" is one definition rather than another. Instead, all this really amounts to is a bunch of scientists voting on a different meaning, because it seems easier to define universally; it seems more pure and would make scientific discussion easier.
I say this is interesting because, in the recent Intelligent Design debate, many scientists have come out claiming that only scientifically testable claims belong in field of science, and that only scientifically testable claims belong in science classrooms. Yet here is an issue that is rather blatantly not scientifically testable, and scientists around the world are hotly debating it. Should we allow the issue of the definition of "Planet" to be discussed in a science classroom? Or should it be a topic just for english or history classrooms?
I think the planet debate illustrates fairly conclusively that science (and scientists) are not just concerned with scientifically testable questions. Other questions related to science, but not necessarily testable, are also within the scope of their field. At the very minimum, nontestable semantic questions (such as the meaning of "planet") are in fact an important part of science.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's hard to come up with a discipline that doesn't have within its scope -- besides the core activity or pursuit of the discipline itself (medicine, engineering, education, religion, sports, you-name-it) -- the meta-activity of defining the terms in use within that discipline.
What you are pointing out -- while I could quibble with certain details -- is not an interesting revelation whatsoever.
In fact, the Intelligent Design debate is in a sense the effort of some to redefine the terms "science" and "science education", and the remarks you cite ("many scientists have come out claiming that only scientifically testable claims belong in field of science, and that only scientifically testable claims belong in science classrooms") were exactly analogous to scientists today (together with historians and others) agreeing that "only X are 'planets,' and only satellites having characteristics of Y should be called 'planets.'"
In other words, business as usual.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Other questions related to science, but not necessarily testable, are also within the scope of their field. At the very minimum, nontestable semantic questions (such as the meaning of "planet") are in fact an important part of science.
I'd like to give that a big "well, duh".
And if you somehow interpreted from other threads on science that definitions of terms were not important, you've been pretty intentionally misreading those threads.
In order to test something, one must have agreed upon terms. A meter, for instance, is not an arbirary length - it has a definition. Same with words like gravity, mass, velocity, etc.
Scientists are trying to refine their definition of one of their terms so that they can be more precise with the labeling of their observations and the communication of their findings.
quote:many scientists have come out claiming that only scientifically testable claims belong in field of science, and that only scientifically testable claims belong in science classrooms.
To take your ridiculous interpretation of this statement, that would mean that textbooks, students, teachers, desks, computers, and even oxygen would be excluded as they are not "testable claims".
quote:Should we allow the issue of the definition of "Planet" to be discussed in a science classroom?
Another thing -- not to further hijack this thread -- of course the definition of 'planet' is suitable for discussion in a science classroom, as is the definition of 'science' itself.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope this means that Pluto will get a reality show on TLC titled "Little Planet, Big Solar System."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Jon Boy, what happened to the validity of language reflecting consensus reality versus declarations being handed down by authoritarian bodies?
Maybe we can get these chaps to strike down the archaic spelling of "Through".
Or another idea might be for someone to finish implementing the metric system before we go revising the Solar System.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I have never claimed to be a pure descriptivist. And second of all, it looks like it has been defined through consensus (or at least a majority) of the professionals who deal most with planets, but it's not like they have any power to force their definition upon the masses.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you somehow interpreted from other threads on science that definitions of terms were not important, you've been pretty intentionally misreading those threads.
No, I knew most people realized the importance of definitions in science. It's just that there has been an argument advanced that Intelligent Design does not belong in a science classroom because (1) it is not scientifically testable, and (2) only scientifically testable claims belong in the science classroom. The need to discuss definitions which are not scientifically testable (such as the definition of "planet" in this case) contradicts premise #2 and thus suggests that particular argument against I.D. is unsound.
quote:And second of all, it looks like it has been defined through consensus (or at least a majority) of the professionals who deal most with planets, but it's not like they have any power to force their definition upon the masses.
There are other professions that deal with planets that were not consulted, though. What do the astrologists have to say about this?!
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you somehow interpreted from other threads on science that definitions of terms were not important, you've been pretty intentionally misreading those threads.
No, I knew most people realized the importance of definitions in science. It's just that there has been an argument advanced that Intelligent Design does not belong in a science classroom because (1) it is not scientifically testable, and (2) only scientifically testable claims belong in the science classroom. The need to discuss definitions which are not scientifically testable (such as the definition of "planet" in this case) contradicts premise #2 and thus suggests that particular argument against I.D. is unsound.
The key word there is "claims." The definition of the word "planet" is not a claim, but an arbitrary designation given to a certain class of objects. There's nothing to prove or disprove here- all of the astronomers involved are perfectly well aware that ANY definition of "planet" will only work most of the time, at best. The definition is used because some sort of definition is necessary for intelligible discussion. It doesn't represent any greater underlying truth. Evolution and ID, on the other hand, both purport to have explanatory power- they make the claim that such-and-such is the root mechanism behind a set of observations. To be scientific, these mechanisms must be testable, and therefore falsifiable. The definition of "planet" does not, because there's nothing to test. If the IAU voted to define "planet" as "any body larger than an elephant," that wouldn't affect our understanding of astronomy in the slightest, except to make the term "planet" utterly useless as nomenclature.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:...in the recent Intelligent Design debate, many scientists have come out claiming that only scientifically testable claims belong in field of science, and that only scientifically testable claims belong in science classrooms. Yet here is an issue that is rather blatantly not scientifically testable, and scientists around the world are hotly debating it.
Then Tres wrote:
quote:...there has been an argument advanced that Intelligent Design does not belong in a science classroom because (1) it is not scientifically testable, and (2) only scientifically testable claims belong in the science classroom. The need to discuss definitions which are not scientifically testable (such as the definition of "planet" in this case) contradicts premise #2 and thus suggests that particular argument against I.D. is unsound.
In between those two effectively identical statements, Tres's idea was thoroughly dismissed, along with complete explanations for its dismissal. Yet Tres repeats it, without, as usual, any reference being made to said dismissal or said explanations.
You would think that based on this experience and a number of others like it in the past, I would give up with a simple ; it would probably add years to my life. Instead I will take one more crack at it.
Tres: Read my lips. Whenever anyone in any discipline makes any statement of the sort "we in our discipline only concern ourselves with X and Y," you may happily append to that, "...and any and all definitions of terms, including 'X' and 'Y' themselves, that may be necessary in pursuit of our discipline."
Let's look at an example.
quote:Numismatist: "We concentrate solely on postage stamps, and associated instruments of postage such as franking, envelopes, currency, etc."
Tresopax: "I saw an article about your guild having a debate about the meaning of the word 'antique.' Yet the word 'antique' is not a postage stamp or an associated instrument of postage. How can you concentrate on a word and its meaning, when you just said you only concentrate on postage stamps?"
Numismatist:
In presenting this argument, I am even doing the favor of ignoring several fatal errors in your argument, and only addressing the central idiocy. In case it helps, here are the other errors:
quote:...there has been an argument advanced that Intelligent Design does not belong in a science classroom because (1) it is not scientifically testable...,
Wrong. It does not belong in a science classroom because it is not science.
quote:...and (2) only scientifically testable claims belong in the science classroom....
Wrong. Only science, and any and all discussions relative to science, the advancement of science, and the teaching of science, belong in the science classroom.
quote:...The need to discuss definitions which are not scientifically testable (such as the definition of "planet" in this case)...
This clause makes no sense. As already stated many times over, all definitions relevant to any discipline always need to be known, agreed on, discussed, debated, etc.
quote:... contradicts premise #2 and thus suggests that particular argument against I.D. is unsound.
Wrong. It contradicts nothing and suggests nothing, since it makes no sense and Premise #2 is crapola.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you somehow interpreted from other threads on science that definitions of terms were not important, you've been pretty intentionally misreading those threads.
No, I knew most people realized the importance of definitions in science. It's just that there has been an argument advanced that Intelligent Design does not belong in a science classroom because (1) it is not scientifically testable, and (2) only scientifically testable claims belong in the science classroom. The need to discuss definitions which are not scientifically testable (such as the definition of "planet" in this case) contradicts premise #2 and thus suggests that particular argument against I.D. is unsound.
That's assuming that a definition isn't "testable." But what if it is?
I mean, we have to fall onto the most useful and relevant definition in order to do good science. This is what many argued from the beginning: define Pluto as a planet and you are doing science a disfavor by burdening the definition with too broad an application. This is the ultimate test: will science bear it? More likely if it had been decided that Plutinos are planets, then scientists would have fallen back on new terms for "real" planets, calling them Jovia or Terrestrial, as in fact already happens, when we talk about other solar systems especially. Science does tend to work itself out that way, according to convenience and sense. It seems that this is not the downswing of a new defintion of planet, but the culmination of many years of thought which tended toward the idea that it is not practical or sensible to call Pluto a planet.
As to why astrologers were not "consulted," though I find the idea amusing: simply because this is an Astronomical society. Its findings do not have a basis, iirc in law. Its findings are influential because it is the combined voice of an international community of astronomers, and because astronomers look to the canon of that organization for their working definitions of astronomical objects and other info necessary to keep scientists speaking the same jargon. It is a meeting of astronomers who have agreed to decide together, for their own convenience, and the decision is only "official" in that capacity, because all members previously agreed to follow the group.
These societies, of which there are very many, originally sprung up centuries ago in Europe to serve as social clubs for "gentlemen scientists" to indulge a hobby at great expense. Each of them grew into an influential body after many many years of evolution and additions to their agendas, their enrollments, and their activities. They are largely, as far as I know, older than the governments which now fund them.
Edit: Von Pelt- thank you for wrapping your head around a set of circular logical problems I had no interest in talking about, but I am glad someone else did.
Tres- listen to that post, you can't make your argument sit up and do flips if you call it a circus dog. Its still nonsense and it won't do anything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think the planet debate illustrates fairly conclusively that science (and scientists) are not just concerned with scientifically testable questions. Other questions related to science, but not necessarily testable, are also within the scope of their field. At the very minimum, nontestable semantic questions (such as the meaning of "planet") are in fact an important part of science.
I am a musician, and I have to still be concerned with driving a car, much less knowing the names of guitar companies and famous musicians and composers and their life works. I have to know new conventions of musical notation as well as historic conventions of form and composition and notation. I am a musician, but I suppose you would say that musicians are no longer simply concerned with playing music. In what way is that statment surprising to anyone- about anyone?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's assuming that a definition isn't "testable." But what if it is?
I mean, we have to fall onto the most useful and relevant definition in order to do good science. This is what many argued from the beginning: define Pluto as a planet and you are doing science a disfavor by burdening the definition with too broad an application. This is the ultimate test: will science bear it?
Very nicely put. I hadn't thought it through deeply enough to go there, but you are absolutely right. (And thanks for coming back on topic )
In fact, definitions of words, in the more traditional sense -- i.e. when done by lexicographers, not international academic panels -- are also testable. Lexicographers amass citations of words used in language, in writing, in various contexts; when you read a definition in a dictionary, you are entitled to ask the dictionary publisher, 'how do you know?' And they'll have published evidence (citations) supporting the definition.
Note, I am not claiming that is a scientific process, exactly -- it is more of an academic process.
The other kinds of 'defining of terms' I was referring to above (such as a church panel deciding on their doctrinal definition of 'resurrection') are more philosophical. But the fact is, ALL kinds of defining of terms -- philosophical, academic, scientific, testable, not-testable -- are an everyday part of any discipline.
It's part of being human to need to name things.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...and (2) only scientifically testable claims belong in the science classroom....
Wrong. Only science, and any and all discussions relative to science, the advancement of science, and the teaching of science, belong in the science classroom.
You seem to claim (in a not-so-polite fashion!) that I am wrong, riddled with errors, and have been proven wrong, yet in the above quote you agree directly with what is essentially my entire point and put it in a way I completely agree with.
Although please note that the above quote conflicts with your earlier claim that I.D. "does not belong in a science classroom because it is not science." In the earlier quote above you admit that more than just "science" belongs in the science classroom - also "any and all discussions relative to science, the advancement of science, and the teaching of science". So in order to be clear and make that argument consistent with what you are saying, your claim should read that "I.D. does not belong in a sience classroom because it is not science AND because it is not a discussion relative to science, the advancement of science, and the teaching of science."
This is the casual mixing up of "only science" and "only science AND discussions related to science" that I am concerned about. Because it is rather easy to show that aspects of I.D. are not science, but it is more difficult to argue that they are not even related to science. If they casually leave out that critical "AND discussion related to science", opponents of teaching I.D. are glossing over the most difficult part of the argument they need to make to prove their point.
quote:The key word there is "claims." The definition of the word "planet" is not a claim, but an arbitrary designation given to a certain class of objects.
That is an interesting point, but I think I would consider this definition a "claim" of some sort - even if the claim really just amounts to "it is easier if we use this new definition." These are scientists; they don't operate in a random fashion. There must be some reason, some beliefs, behind their decision to make this change. And I don't think these beliefs are testable through the scientific method. Is there some sort of experiment we can perform to determine what the better definition of "planet" is? I think the change in terminology, like John said, is more of an academic process than a scientific process. It is based in valid reasoning, but not the scientific method. You could call it testable, but not really testable by the scientific method.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to claim (in a not-so-polite fashion!) that I am wrong, riddled with errors, and have been proven wrong
I've found it wastes far less time to just start out with this opinion when dealing with your posts, Tres.
quote:This is the casual mixing up of "only science" and "only science AND discussions related to science" that I am concerned about.
Because we must teach science without discussing it. No questions! You, student -- put that hand right back down! There will be no discussion relating to this material! I'll stand for none of it! This is science class, not discussions about science class!
ID might belong in a science class only in the sense of a bad example, to show a juxtaposition of science v. "not science".
For instance, an English teacher may show an example of a poorly written essay to point out why it is not acceptable, and a math teacher may show an example of a sloppy and flawed proof to show students what they should *not* do. So too could a science teacher introduce ID to show why it is not science, or could introduce philosophy or religion to show why they are not science.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to claim (in a not-so-polite fashion!) that I am wrong, riddled with errors, and have been proven wrong
I've found it wastes far less time to just start out with this opinion when dealing with your posts, Tres.
Well, it does allow me to more quickly see who is just going to dismiss whatever I say. But it probably doesn't save time, because I tend to believe it is useful to go ahead and say my point anyway. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE] [QUOTE]The key word there is "claims." The definition of the word "planet" is not a claim, but an arbitrary designation given to a certain class of objects.
That is an interesting point, but I think I would consider this definition a "claim" of some sort - even if the claim really just amounts to "it is easier if we use this new definition." These are scientists; they don't operate in a random fashion. There must be some reason, some beliefs, behind their decision to make this change. And I don't think these beliefs are testable through the scientific method. Is there some sort of experiment we can perform to determine what the better definition of "planet" is? I think the change in terminology, like John said, is more of an academic process than a scientific process. It is based in valid reasoning, but not the scientific method. You could call it testable, but not really testable by the scientific method.
Certainly there is reason behind their choice of definition. But just as with the word "species," it is a choice of convenience, out of the recognition that we human beings are not really good at dealing with gradients of traits or attributes. In order to have any sort of substantive discussion about the astronomy of our solar system, we need to be able to classify things. It takes too damn long to say "Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus"; just saying "the planets" gets the same information across more succinctly.
Creating a consensus on the meaning of the term is an acknowledgment that the objects encompassed within share many observable similarities, but nothing more. As the controversy itself has shown, there can be a great deal of disagreement about which similarities are the "important" ones, but ultimately this is entirely a semantic distinction, one that again is based on the human need to classify things for the purposes of clarity.
You note (correctly, IMO) that the defining of a term like "planet" cannot be testable by the scientific method, but this neither demonstrates the non-scientific nature of the term nor the scientific nature of ID. They are all fundamentally different things. Terminology is a mutually agreed-upon set of words that mean a mutually agreed-upon set of definitions, and only reflects reality insofar as the objects the terminology describes actually exist. A given term is judged by its usefulness to the scientists who utilize it, not by how well it explains what they observe.
(Incidentally, this is one reason I'm quite peeved about the press coverage of the Pluto debate. The press is acting as if this new definition will be ironclad for all time, unchangeable once the astronomers make their solemn judgment. Which is complete crap. The definition of "planet" has changed before, and if, in the future, astronomers decide that the new definition no longer works as a useful term, for whatever reason, they'll undoubtedly change the definition again.)
Scientific theories, on the other hand, purport to explain reality itself- how did what we observe come to be? Such a claim must be falsifiable and testable in order to have scientific validity, because otherwise, we cannot make any judgment about it at all. Ergo, the theory of evolution is scientifically valid because it can be proved wrong very easily, and Intelligent Design is not, because it is impossible to disprove. That we've discovered massive quantities of evidence in favor of descent with modification, and literally none against it, is therefore extremely strong support for evolutionary theory.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In related news, Pluto was further degraded when he was abandoned by Mickey and became the dog of Hewey, Dewey, and Lewie--Donald Duck's orphaned nephews.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is the casual mixing up of "only science" and "only science AND discussions related to science" that I am concerned about. Because it is rather easy to show that aspects of I.D. are not science, but it is more difficult to argue that they are not even related to science. If they casually leave out that critical "AND discussion related to science", opponents of teaching I.D. are glossing over the most difficult part of the argument they need to make to prove their point.
Two quick responses and then I must get back to my life:
1. What you call "the casual mixing up of 'only science' and 'only science AND discussions related to science'" is not casual, but nor is it the slightest bit controversial.
You seem to be responding as if these are debating points in some machiavellian argument to exclude ID from public schools, when in fact they are simple, basic, commonly understood statements that apply without prejudice to every discipline you can name.
Of course the content of a course in Comparative Religions (for example) should contain only "Comparative Religions." To expand this definition to include "only Comparative Religions and discussions related to Comparative Religions" is merely a trivial distinction without a real difference. The case with science is no different.
It's like you asked me what color my car is, and I say black. And then, when I happen to mention that there are some chrome bits, and glass which is transparent, etc., you say "Aha! so it's NOT really black!!" It's as if you are being deliberately stupid in order to create a pointless argument, the way a child does.
2. The ID stuff doesn't really belong in this thread, but suffice to say that permitting 'discussions related to science' is not really the loophole you think it is. The ID debate was about specifically teaching an alternative view of creation and evolution as if it were part of scientific knowledge. It is not, and thus should not be taught as such.
On the other hand, most people I know on the evolutionist side happily agree that ID (along with creationism, or whatever else) -- especially given the political attention it has received -- can and maybe should be mentioned in certain contexts. Some biology teachers have talked about devoting a unit to the history or philosophy of science. Whole college courses exist on this topic. Of course ID belongs in those curricula, along with a critique of the broader impact of Darwinism on world thought and religion in particular.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: In related news, Pluto was further degraded when he was abandoned by Mickey and became the dog of Hewey, Dewey, and Lewie--Donald Duck's orphaned nephews.
Damn those ducks! First Scrooge gets all the money, now Donald gets all the cool pets? If I were Mickey, I would have gone postal long ago.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to claim (in a not-so-polite fashion!) that I am wrong, riddled with errors, and have been proven wrong
I've found it wastes far less time to just start out with this opinion when dealing with your posts, Tres.
Well, it does allow me to more quickly see who is just going to dismiss whatever I say. But it probably doesn't save time, because I tend to believe it is useful to go ahead and say my point anyway.
Well, you're wrong again. Thankfully your little agenda about Id isn't getting any biters because its so convoluted. Please, as I said before, listen to the very intelligent people who are explaining things to you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What you call "the casual mixing up of 'only science' and 'only science AND discussions related to science'" is not casual, but nor is it the slightest bit controversial.
It may not be controversial, but it IS done casually very often by many people (including scientists) and it SHOULD be controversial, because it is very dangerous to science.
You may consider the distinction trivial, and while that may be true on a certain level, I believe from experience that major problems are often rooted in what originally appear to be trivial confusions. In this case, I think the failure by scientists and non-scientists to make this distinction between science itself and nonscience that is related to science is undermining the proper authority of science - and leading to major conflict between conservatives and science that has altered western society.
This is because science, in the minds of the public, has been wrongly transfigured into a broad system of beliefs, rather than a strict method of observation, by those who casually overlook the disinction between what science actually says and what we infer from what science says based on nonscientific assumptions. As a result people come to believe that "Science" says things like "We need to redefine 'Planet'", or "God doesn't exist", or "Abortion is not the killing of a person", or even "Women should stay home with children rather than men." I have actually heard each of these claims attributed to science before, even though science cannot make any of those claims. Thus it's no surprise many groups look upon science as a rival ideology. It's no surprise religious fundamentalists are trying to manipulate science to say what they want it to say. These things all arise from the simple fact that we fail to distinguish between what science actually says (that which is experiementally supported) and all the other discussions that are related to science but are not scientific.
The results of the scientific method itself are rock solid, because they are observable, repeatable, and measureable. One cannot deny them in good conscience. But when we throw in all sorts of other "discussions related to science" under the umbrella of science, that line becomes blurred. We can no longer trust science to be rock solid, if we do that. It becomes an ideology, or even a religion of sorts - based on fact, but easily disputed as "just one side of the issue" by those who'd like to reject its conclusions.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor Pluto. It's probably totally embarrassed right now. I bet Jupiter is making fun of it and Saturn is throwing spitwads at it. Neptune will pick it last for kickball in gym class.
quote:These things all arise from the simple fact that we fail to distinguish between what science actually says (that which is experiementally supported) and all the other discussions that are related to science but are not scientific.
And what you seem incapable of realizing is that Science doesn't say anything, ever, without discussion related to science.
If you limit Science to strict observation, as you seem inclined to do, then it cannot discuss its observations or even report on them. In order to communicate observations to the world, or discuss the relationship between scientific theories and observations, one must discuss things science-related.
[quote]The results of the scientific method itself are rock solid, because they are observable, repeatable, and measureable.[/quote
But they exist in a vacuum without the scientist's ability to use language to communicate the results and discuss them with peers.
You cannot have Science without discussion. It's like trying to have Math without numbers. In the abstract sense, I suppose both are possible, but we don't live in abstraction. To teach Science or learn from Science, you must use words and language associated with Science. To accurately teach Science or learn from Science, you have to have clear and universally accepted definitions of the words and language you use.
To divorce the language of science from science itself is folly.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right. There is nothing wrong with discussing science. I'm just worried about discussion that are not about science, or that are founded upon assumptions that are not scientificly proven, being labeled as "what science shows us".
Talking about science is still science. But when you are talking about how we should define the words we use to talk about science, then we have moved on to semantics, which is important but is not science. It may be related to scientific facts, such as the fact that Pluto has been observed to behave differently from other planets, but whether or not that should mean it is not defined as a "planet" is a matter of semantic preference or usefulness, rather than science.
And yes, this is a bit of a trivial distinction for Pluto's case, because it is just about wording, but the same principle becomes much more important when applied to major political issues like global warming, evolution, euthanasia, bioethics, etc., where dramatic political claims are often made in the name of science.
quote:There is nothing wrong with discussing science.
In order to discuss science, you need a universally agreed upon set of definitions and terms. In this sense, semantics is a part of science - just as mathematics is a part of science.
A meter cannot mean two different things to two different scientists, for instance. Gravity can't have two different definitions or equations for two different scientists - and if there is a discrepancy, there must be a lot of discussion to make sure that one or the other is correct.
Specificity of language is integral to science, and vaguery is detrimental - therefore, discussion of terms is as important to science as the terms themselves and what the terms are describing.
quote:whether or not that should mean it is not defined as a "planet" is a matter of semantic preference or usefulness, rather than science.
Exactly, it's a matter of usefulness, which is of the utmost importance to a scientist. If a term is not useful, it cannot be used (obviously). It's why scientists don't talk about "things" that revolve around a "bright thing" but instead "planets" that revolve around a "star".
Science is about observation and experimentation, as you pointed out earlier. If you cannot adequately describe your observations or experiments, or if you use an ambiguous term such as "planet" (or "thing") when there is no universally accepted meaning, then you cannot communicate effectively with other scientists.
Science starts with basic understandings and definitions, and then expands from there. Our earliest experiences with science in school start with definitions and classifications - why a plant is different than an animal, for instance. Once we have agreed upon terms, we can then more effectively discuss "plants" because everyone is on the same page.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And yes, this is a bit of a trivial distinction for Pluto's case, because it is just about wording, but the same principle becomes much more important when applied to major political issues like global warming, evolution, euthanasia, bioethics, etc., where dramatic political claims are often made in the name of science.
Who is it making those claims "in the name of science?" Scientists make assertions and others, usually politicians (both scientist and non-scientist) make those claims and abuse science, then people like you blame the scientists for the controversy, when you have to understand that every major discussion in science is debatable, that being the nature of the scientific method.
This debate over Pluto, like many conventional wisdoms that we know we must eventually change, was inevitable. The press created the controversy because they want to make news of science. Exactly what would you have had happen Tres? Exactly what is your solution for taking the politics out of scientific communities? You ought to have learned from experience, if that is what you are claiming to have, that ALL groups of people working together have a group dynamic, and that the larger the group, the more the dynamic looks political. Politics is an unnavoidable part of having a group function-- and scientists also need to work in large groups for obvious reasons.
All this to say that I simply don't understand the basis of your complaint- if it is a complaint? What you have scientists do, avoid arguments like this one and simply get along in peace and harmony and chaos? This whole discussion is frankly weird. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've gathered, Tres' thought path is the following:
1. Science is only about observation and experimentation 2. Talk of definitions is neither, and is instead semantics 3. Scientists are valuing something that is neither observation or experimentation 4. This "science related" topic of planets (which, in his mind isn't science, but instead "not science") is being taught in the classroom 5. Intelligent Design is neither observation or experimentation and is also "not science" 6. If you're going to discuss semantics like the word planet, why not discuss Intelligent Design?
Of course, the first listed premise is flawed, so the logical steps collapse. But that is what he seems to be getting at.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess its reasonable that someone with such a flawed understanding of the topic would go there... I find it quite amusing that Tres claims that "semantics" bring down pure scientific discussion, but ignores the fact that ID is completely outside the realm of science. While we're on unrelated topics, I think my theory of the nightime booger gnomes should be discussed in school. I know it isn't science per se, but it is related to science because I call it a theory.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, people have already gone down that road with the FSM and IPU. But your NBG should have their own website, I think.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That article is simply playing off the controversy with little idea of what astronomers actually think of jovian planets. I am in an astronomy class right now about solar systems, and interestingly this topic was covered in a lecture this week. Essentially, jovian planets can reach anywhere up to 100 times (iirc) the size of Jupiter without going nuclear and becoming stars. Their compositions are nearly identical to smaller jovian planets, because the only thing that makes a jovian planet applies to everything from neptune to this newly discovered jovian: large enough to retain gaseous hydrogen, not large enough to cause nuclear reactions. There is no controversy about this: a star is just like a jovian planet, only ALOT bigger, and undergoing nuclear fusion reactions of various types.
Terrestrial to Jovian to star, all the planets are made from the same conglomeration of material, the bulk of which (98% more or less) has been collected in the center to form a mass large enough to go nuclear. The sun and the earth and the jovians and the commets all came from the same dust cloud, so the distinctions all have to do with their steady state qualities, and Jovian planets 100 times the size of jupiter have the same qualities as a jovian half its size or less.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
; it would probably add years to my life. Instead I will take one more crack at it.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
