[meteorite-list] Pluto May Get Demoted After All

From: MexicoDoug <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Aug 19 19:27:05 2006
Message-ID: <008901c6c3e6$ebb2dd20$a6cc5ec8_at_0019110394>

Hello List:

Fun question: Will the "rules" potentially affect whether we can call a
Lunar meteorite a planetary meteorite (current use of "Lunar and Planetary"
as in LPS, notwithstanding)? How about a Vestoid meteorite?.

Also I am really relieved that my objections to Dr. Lebofsky about orbits of
high eccentricity and this arbitrary "inside" vs. "outside" center-of-mass
were precisely the surprise points taken into consideration on Friday for
revision, apparently not by the Committee, but by other astronomers
present...(I don't believe in the "biggest in its class" counterproposal -
just the resistance to accepting arbitrary "planet" criteria - not to swap
it for another) according to Ron Baalke's latest forwarded newsreport on the
meeting.

Hello Larry: I'll speak my mind and not sit half way in this debate..
**rolling up the sleeves to intersperse comments appropriately** :

Dr. Lebofsky wrote:

> I never thought that I would admit to agreeing completely with Sterling
(just
> kidding), but I am.

What do you "admit" to agreeing completely with Sterling about? You owe an
apology? You didn't read properly? Or you need to change the seals in your
brain? Those were HIS latest spirited comments on THIS subject available to
the list at the time of your post. I think you were too careless to miss
this comment in the present discussion, and further to promulgate something
untrue w/o getting the facts straight. ( garbage in ?=? garbage out).

> I have googled Kripke's credentials and I do not see how he would add
anything
> to the committee.

Surely You're Joking, Dr. Lebofsky!...let's not miss the boat...in my
opinion. I am disappointed, and do accept we just disagree.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/article.php?id=694&el=true
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/books/28krip.html?ex=1296104400&en=9b8c063
55a8dc486&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:flSe455UvQgJ:www.princeton.edu/~jburgess
/Kripke2.doc+%22Saul+Kripke%22+princeton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

> As I said before and I will say again, a lot of thought went

Heard you the first time. This is a variant of the circularly reasoned
mantra that "because it's always been done that way, it's OK" or "It's
because I said so" - patently circular to be said during the phases of
deliberation on it here. I am sure the Church put a lot of thought into the
Earth as the Center of the Universe committee without inviting Galileo, who
by 1633 was beaten into submission.

> into the formation of this committee from both the astronomical and
astronomy
> history community. These are people who know the issues, who know the
science

Issues, OK, tenured, educated, fine people OK all with my respect. But your
comment amounts to a thought-terminating clich?. And what science do you
mean exactly? The scientific method requires a problem defined, a theory to
explain it, an experiment and analysis to demonstrate it, and a conclusion
based on scientific methodology to resolve it. How to take a popular term
in language like the word "Planet" and force change over the other half of
the scientific community, in my opinion, by your implication, who don't know
the issues as well and don't know the science as well, and are in need of
expert guidance.

> (the words and concepts are far from arbitrary),

Do you mean they are "far from" being based on or subject to individual
judgment or preference (the definition of arbitrary I'm using)? If so, I
strongly disagree. If not, I do not follow.

> and who, in general, did not
> come in with an agenda which was a problem with the first committee.

As you were apparently part of that first Committee, I guess you are
generally saying you and/or the colleagues you disagreed with on the first
committee had their "agendas" which led to the disbanding and lack of
consensus. OK, I appreciate the political insight and justification.

>This is not a linguistic issue, it is a science issue as to how one draws
the line
> between planets

I vigorously disagree. In the first place, linguistics IS a science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics , so you are contradicting yourself
and probably ignoring a relevant scientific tool due to your personal bias
relegating linguistics and others to something lesser. However, this is a
philosophical issue above all. Clearly you don't agree, because you think
the erudite contemporary philosopher / scientist and Nobel (Schock) Laureate
on the Necessities of Naming of the need for names would "add nothing" to
the 12-person(?) "expert" committee. The definition of science isn't
arbitrary and there are no "secondary" sciences, since science refers to a
method of study, not any more than there are "secondary" planets.

> and (whatever you want to call something smaller than a planet).

"SMALLER"? So in your OPINION that's the crux of it? Is this all about
sugar coating the auspices to cut out the little guys, after all?

> It has implications with respect to the origin and evolution of our
> Solar System and other stellar systems.

While I absolutely respect your individual opinions and rights to hold them,
I feel such opinions presented as debate material are vague, and vacuous
given the general lack supporting substance. This issue may cause
researchers to worry about the newly integrated planet police in future
editorial boards keeping an eye on them. And it may manipulate a new series
of scientific efforts to prove whether objects are "official planets" or
something else. Which would be fine if those resources weren't now removed
from other projects and somewhat restrictive of taxonomic thought and
action. And it may revoke or revolve children's favorite "cute" planet and
have the unfortunate side effect of killing millions of trees in
reprinting..

Just because someone scientifically measures physical properties or
parameters doesn't mean that grouping them based on individual judgment and
preference and imposing rules so derived on the masses is either useful to
science or necessary to anyone or any branch of logic. Nor does it
logically follow that science will benefit or be damaged. IF YOUR CLAIM
ABOVE WERE TRUE, IT WOULD BE BEST STUDIED FIRST IN PEER CRITICIZED JOURNALS
AND NOT BY A COMMITTEE TARGETTING A VOTE DEADLINE. And if I am wrong about
everything I've said, and you are right on this point, Taxonomy is a
science, too, which might help balance the committee. In other disiplines
using the scientific method it is subject to intense publication and peer
review before any committee steps in. Come to think of it, fellow expert
scientists from this area might come in handy as balancing committee
members, too:
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/includes/page.jsp?nfv=&booksection=preamble .

My turn to agree with Sterling as I frequently do: "Why is the tiny 3 AU
wide patch around the Sun so special as to have four planets in it? 'Cause
we live there, and aren't we special...? The planets may go around the Sun,
but the definition goes around the Earth." [PD to Sterling: Interestingly,
aside, maybe "go around the Sun", but don't forget the orbit police: Jupiter
doesn't exactly revolve around the Sun - it orbits the center of mass
outside of the Sun, just as the Sun orbits that same point in "empty"
space.]

Clear skies, Doug
"In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of
thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded,
is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc." ...from "1984".
Received on Sat 19 Aug 2006 07:26:35 PM PDT