[meteorite-list] re: All Hail Eris and Dysnomia (2003 UB313)

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Sep 18 00:10:14 2006
Message-ID: <006f01c6dacd$d1fa9910$e7e5fb44_at_ATARIENGINE>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Langbroek" <marco.langbroek_at_wanadoo.nl>
To: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb_at_sbcglobal.net>; "meteorite list"
<meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] re: All Hail Eris and Dysnomia (2003 UB313)


> Sterling, to quote you directly from your first post that started this
> exchange:
>
>> "Rights" and "credit" are neither right nor credible
>> when stolen.

    In retrospect, I regard it as an intemperate statement on
my part, that seems to be assertive of the negative view
expressed in the Wikipedia quotation (more about that later)
which made up the remainder of my email. It was in response
to an entirely assertive statement which was the whole of
your email:

> Naming rights and formal discovery credit for 2003 EL61 are not Brown's:
> but Ortiz et al.'s....

    Not much of a nod to any potential ambiguity there,
nor doubt, nor uncertainty. But I realize now that you
were probably merely referring to the listing for 136108:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/NumberedMPs135001.html

> ..while in you post of the 15th you say for example:

>> I can conceive of less charitable
>> explanations for the same sequence of events.

> This is clear I think. You favour the dark reading of the events and
> consider the discovery to be "stolen".

    Perhaps I should have said "One" could conceive
of less charitable explanations, or that "Some" may
conceive of less charitable explanations, or that "Many"
do conceive of less charitable explanations...

    But that I am capable of conceiving of a thought
is not in any sense a "clear" proof that I favor or assert
it, nor any kind of proof. It was descriptive of the situation.
That sentence ended a paragraph whose point was that
the affair is one in which different individuals take differing
views, in other words, that there is still controversy,
which would appear to be true.

    My present view, which I have repeated a several
times in the last few exchanges, is that the Brown-Ortiz
dispute is an indeterminate case, about which no certain
factual conclusion can be made. Numerous inferrential
rationales can be constructed to fit the same facts, but
none can be, in any sense, proven. After a lot more time
on the Internet investigating it than I did a year ago when
this dispute arose, it seems to me to be less determinable
than ever, as to what actually took place.

    As such, you could say that my views have modified
from an inclination to accept the more negative (to Ortiz)
formulation given in the Wikipedia (where any statement
can be disputed at length by anybody who objects to it;
if it is in error, why has no one disputed it? To let this public
statement stand: "He concedes that it was Brown's team
that discovered the object," taken from a German radio
Spanish language broadcast, while at the same time the
IAU credits him with discovery, is mind-boggling).

    I now regard the affair, as I said, as an indetermine
case, i.e., I just don't know what happened and don't
believe it's actually possible to know. I live with the
uncertainty. Sort of like quantum theory. No, worse,
because human beings are so much less easily
characterized than particles...

    As for the cultural factors at work that you mention, it
has become clear to me as I read more of what has been
said that a surprising (to me) amount of emotional intensity
has become attached to this matter, which I would not wish
to bring to The List, and it seems, you would wish to avoid
also. I think this is wise on both our parts.

    The term "naming rights" is widely bandied about, but
the IAU has sole right to name things; that is their original
founding purpose! There are conventions of naming, as Larry
Lebofsky pointed out, but the IAU can accept or decline
any name, and anyone can suggest a name.

    "The Committee for Small Body Nomenclature has the
responsibility, under the authority of the IAU; the actual
naming is administered, under the guidance of the committee,
by the Minor Planet Center (MPC) and the Central Bureau
for Astronomical Telegrams (CBAT)." In other words, Brian
Marsden, who has seemed to favor the Brown claim, will be
prominent in the process.

    Since 2003 EL61 has been assigned a number (136108), it
would seem that a name is soon to follow. Looking at Sept. 7th's
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/NumberedMPs135001.html
which gives "discovery circumstances" shows 2003 EL61,
discovered 2003 03 07 at Sierra Nevada, by Aceituno, F. J.,
Santos-Sanz, P., Ortiz, J. L.

    So, some questions:
    Does anyone know if Ortiz et al. have submitted a name?
    Does anyone know if Ortiz et al. have been asked by the
CSBN to submit a name? Which, I should add, the CSBN seems
obligated to do: "When an asteroid [numbered body] receives
a permanent designation [number], the discoverer of the asteroid is
invited to suggest a name for that asteroid. There are extensive
guidelines for the choice of names but ultimately the name
must be approved by the CSBN."


Sterling K. Webb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for the rest of your last posting, the part that summarizes in:
>
>> Not astronomy, but cultural anthropology might be the
>> key to understanding what's going on here.
>
> Ah! You finally seem to see some of the light here! Indeed, I fear
> cultural aspects are STRONGLY involved in this whole situation, and not
> just and primarily in the way Ortiz et al. handle their defence. This is
> actually the feeling of many non-Americans regarding this whole
> controversy.
>
> I would have A LOT to say on this. Earlier I didn't want to do that as I
> could see it ignite a hughe flame on this list about politics and culture,
> America versus te rest of the World, with a lot of patriotic sentiments.
> That is what is (still) refraining me but now you bring up this subject of
> culture yourself, I am very, very tempted to give you my European view on
> this...
>
> There is one thing I would like to ad about Ortiz et al. retracting their
> website account. And that is, please acknowledge that Ortiz et al. are
> non-native speakers of English. In a debate with native speakers, that
> always brings you into a very uncomfortable disadvantage.
>
> In a situation like we have at hand here, where as I wrote every word and
> every letter written is scrutinized, lifted up out of their context and
> the exact meaning and implication discussed, this gives you one reason why
> Ortiz et al. feel they should be conservative in what they make public
> regarding written defense. When sentiments rage this high and accusations
> already have been issued that are not born out by facts but rather by
> writing in suggestions of dark intentions into things, it is very easy for
> a native speaker to play the linguistic card and use your own words
> againts you even if they were not intended to imply the way they are
> turned against you. It is also very understandable that the non-native
> speaker who is in the defense against accusations in the debate then feels
> uncertain and starts to be very cautious about what he says.
>
> In fact, as a side note, in this very current polemic between me (a
> non-native speaker of English) and you (a native speaker of English) you
> have started to play this linguistic card too when you subtly correct my
> English when you quote me, as I noted in one of your previous posts.
>
> - Marco
>
> -----
> Dr Marco Langbroek
> Dutch Meteor Society (DMS)
>
> e-mail: meteorites_at_dmsweb.org
> private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek
> DMS website http://www.dmsweb.org
> -----
>
Received on Sun 17 Sep 2006 10:54:54 PM PDT