Jon Stewart's N.D. Tyson recap

[tracer]

In last night's episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, our illustrious host was doing a fake "recap" of the previous episode's interview with Neil Degrasse Tyson. He said:

"I was all, 'Red dwarf stars during their planetary nebulae [sic] phase are comparable in mass to our sun!', and he was all, 'You're an idiot!'."


Have any red dwarf stars even lived long enough yet to reach their planetary nebula phase? I thought the main-sequence lifetime of a red dwarf was supposed to be longer than the current age of the universe.

[parallaxicality]

As I recall, red dwarfs live so long that none have ever died. Also, when they do die, their deaths are too quiet to produce planetary nebulae.

[KaiYeves]

Well, then, he was right for saying that Tyson called him an idiot.

[tracer]

Perhaps he meant during their protoplanetary disk phase.

Heaven knows there's way too much confusion about the term "planetary nebula."

[Fazor]

Have you ever watched Jon? He was just spouting random astro-talk. That's part of the gag, throw buzzwords around knowing they don't make sense. Does the same for political stuff. :-P

[George]

A true taste can be found on NDT's site. Here (http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/category/opus/interview) is one of the video pages.

[Added: The Colbert Report (http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/category/media/colbertreport) interviews are very funny, too. ]

[Gillianren]

Have you ever watched Jon? He was just spouting random astro-talk. That's part of the gag, throw buzzwords around knowing they don't make sense. Does the same for political stuff. :-P

Hence the response of "you're an idiot," I assume.

[Fazor]

Well, I doubt Neil actually called him an idiot. But yeah. The fact that he likes to do those wacky false-quote-dialogues is just one of the many reasons I love Jon. He thinks a lot like I do. Only he's much funnier and has a tv show. :)

[KaiYeves]

"How you destroyed Pluto's life!"
You're right, that is hilarious.

[V_Zhd]

Tyson is coming to speak at my campus (UW-Madison) tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it; maybe I'll get some insight on those appearances...

[KaiYeves]

Lucky you!

[Gillianren]

Tyson is coming to speak at my campus (UW-Madison) tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it; maybe I'll get some insight on those appearances...

He did a presentation at my alma mater back in September that was well worth the price of admission.

[George]

Tyson is coming to speak at my campus (UW-Madison) tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it; maybe I'll get some insight on those appearances... Tell him you have a 3rd grader who wants to know why the Sun is yellow. [Tyson's 2007 book declares, quite correctly, that the Sun is a white star, but such a demotional claim has the potential of duplicating all those 3rd grader letters that he received when he was blamed for demoting Pluto.] He may get a big kick out of it, but with such things, it is hard to say. :)

[parallaxicality]

I get the strong feeling he doesn't like kids

[KaiYeves]

I get the strong feeling he doesn't like kids
Yes, that's the only thing I dislike about him.

[parallaxicality]

I've always been astounded when a scientist doesn't like kids; kids are the one demographic that has consistently been behind science. It's grownups who bash it.

[George]

I get the strong feeling he doesn't like kids I am sure the opposite is true.

[laurele]

Tyson and I have been exchanging emails after he was less than happy about a blog post I wrote about him. He decided that given I've been writing a blog about the solar system for two and a half years, I should get a review copy (meaning free) of his book. It arrived yesterday, and I read the whole thing in one day. It's fascinating that he first contacted me and now, we're having a detailed discussion, with him trying to convince me we're not on opposite sides of the planet debate.

[George]

Tyson and I have been exchanging emails after he was less than happy about a blog post I wrote about him. He decided that given I've been writing a blog about the solar system for two and a half years, I should get a review copy (meaning free) of his book. It arrived yesterday, and I read the whole thing in one day. It's fascinating that he first contacted me and now, we're having a detailed discussion, with him trying to convince me we're not on opposite sides of the planet debate. That's a nice story. He makes a very concerted effort in returning emails. He and I had an enjoyable exchange debating a couple of topics. His effervescent style and sense of humor is impressive.

I did a review in Amazon for him of this book and also noted that it can be read in one day. :)

Did his book change any of your views regarding Pluto?

[laurele]

That's a nice story. He makes a very concerted effort in returning emails. He and I had an enjoyable exchange debating a couple of topics. His effervescent style and sense of humor is impressive.

I did a review in Amazon for him of this book and also noted that it can be read in one day. :)

Did his book change any of your views regarding Pluto?

No, his book did not change my views regarding Pluto, which I have researched extensively over two and a half years. I was happy to find out that Tyson is not happy with the IAU decision either. What is a bit confusing is that while he states his disapproval with the IAU, he does express a sense of being vindicated by the decision. How could he feel vindicated by a problematic decision? Also, I question his claim that the four percent of the IAU who voted on this are representative of all the world's astronomers. The group that voted was heavily biased by dynamicists who essentially hijacked the vote. Tyson also does not address the point that the IAU determined that dwarf planets are not planets at all. He actually describes dwarf planets as a type of planets, which is not what the IAU voted for.

As I said, I'm seriously planning on writing my own book about Pluto. Maybe I'll change Tyson's views on the subject (modesty was never my strong suit). :)

[parallaxicality]

You certainly seem to have a desire to be heard. You pop up pretty much anywhere there's discussion on the topic.

[George]

No, his book did not change my views regarding Pluto, which I have researched extensively over two and a half years. I was happy to find out that Tyson is not happy with the IAU decision either. What is a bit confusing is that while he states his disapproval with the IAU, he does express a sense of being vindicated by the decision. How could he feel vindicated by a problematic decision? He should feel vindicated because the IAU's final decision makes Pluto part of the KBOs, which is why much earlier that the Rose Center group, including panel discussions, elected to not place Pluto into their separate planet-type groupings.


Also, I question his claim that the four percent of the IAU who voted on this are representative of all the world's astronomers. Yes, that is true, but the emotional factor with Pluto seems to be mainly U.S. based, probably because of Disney and of Tombaugh. Now that the storm has come and gone, I am not sure it will be easy to rekindle any storm equivalent to what existed during the Prague event.


Tyson also does not address the point that the IAU determined that dwarf planets are not planets at all. He actually describes dwarf planets as a type of planets, which is not what the IAU voted for. I am unclear what this is all about. "Dwarf planet" sounds like it would still be a planet. The Sun is a "dwarf star", but still a star. There may be a classification distinctive difference, unlike our Sun, but it will still sound like some sort of a planet -- a dwarf one.


You certainly seem to have a desire to be heard. You pop up pretty much anywhere there's discussion on the topic.


As I said, I'm seriously planning on writing my own book about Pluto. Maybe I'll change Tyson's views on the subject (modesty was never my strong suit). :)

Hmmm... care to offer a section on the color of the Sun? :) This too needs reclassification, but it is not near as subjective an issue as Pluto. What we elect to name things is not as critical as claiming that the Sun is yellow when incontrovertible evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Both are fun (ok, I'll say it -- colorful) topics, IMO.

[laurele]

Yes, I try to "pop up" in as many places as possible where this topic is being discussed, so much so that one astronomer who voted against Pluto jokingly accused me of being a spambot for the pro-Pluto camp. My answer is, if the IAU view is going to be heard and repeated, then so is mine.

The IAU's decision is not "final," in spite of what they would have people believe. This issue is not going away any time soon; the debate is very much still ongoing. The "storm" has not "come and gone." There already is a very strong backlash against the Prague decision that is at least equal to the "storm" in Prague, and some planetary scientists are strongly considering forming a rival planetary science organization. My guess is this will issue will remain a matter of contention until New Horizons gives us a lot of new data that very well might help resolve the matter.

Placing Pluto as just one of many KBOs is disingenuous and misleading. It completely ignores a crucial difference between Pluto (and Haumea, Makemake, and Eris) and the other KBOs, which is that Pluto is in hydrostatic equilibrium and therefore geologically differentiated just like the major planets. Why not have a subsection of planets, with their names, within the KBO section?

The affinity for Pluto is not just based on emotion and it is not only US-based. Tyson notes his brother-in-law is an expert in all things Disney, which may be why he attributes so much of people's liking of Pluto to the Disney dog. In talks I have given publicly and discussions I've had with people, I've found that very few even mention the dog when discussing Pluto. Most people who have a liking for Pluto already have an interest in astronomy and in the solar system. Being far away, enigmatic, with little known about it all make Pluto fascinating. And its not just Americans who believe Pluto should be classified as a type of planet. There are Internet groups and blogs from all over the world expressing this view. I've corresponded with people in Morocco, Egypt, the Philippines, Singapore, Canada, England, New Zealand, Australia, and other places, all of whom support Pluto's planet status.

Yes, "dwarf planet" sounds like it should be a type of planet, and if we follow the conventions of astronomy (dwarf stars are still stars; dwarf galaxies are still galaxies), then this would be true. But the IAU vote specifically precluded it when resolution 5b, which would have established that both "classical planets" and "dwarf planets" fall under the umbrella of planets, was voted down 333-93. So it is the IAU that is going against convention here. If they amend only this one area to include dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, a lot of the controversy will likely go away.

Not being a spambot or Windows, I can't do so many things at once, meaning the issue of the color of the Sun, fascinating though it is, will be left to someone else to write about. George, how about you?

[parallaxicality]

Yes, I try to "pop up" in as many places as possible where this topic is being discussed, so much so that one astronomer who voted against Pluto jokingly accused me of being a spambot for the pro-Pluto camp.

You sure that was a joke?


some planetary scientists are strongly considering forming a rival planetary science organization.

Over a single definitional quibble? What's this organisation going to be called? "The International Union of People Who Think Pluto is a Planet"? To create a rival organisation to the IAU over this seems more than a bit drastic to me. So are there now to be two separate definitions of quasars, two separate naming conventions for craters on Mars, and two separate definitions of star or galaxy? The buck has to stop somewhere; all scientists everywhere must agree on definitions, or experiments cannot be repeated.


Placing Pluto as just one of many KBOs is disingenuous and misleading. It completely ignores a crucial difference between Pluto (and Haumea, Makemake, and Eris) and the other KBOs, which is that Pluto is in hydrostatic equilibrium and therefore geologically differentiated just like the major planets. Why not have a subsection of planets, with their names, within the KBO section?

You could just as easily argue that the opposing position is disingenuous and misleading. The Kuiper belt is a structure, an entity composed of many individual parts. It has its own mechanics, its own motions, its own identity. To single out a number of its parts essentially at random and grant them the magic status of planet is like declaring your heart and spleen to be human beings worthy of rights. And it WOULD be a random selection. Whether you accept it or not, "hydrostatic equilibrium" is an arbitrary concept. Some objects are rounder than others, but there is no single point at which one object could be said to have reached hydrostatic equilibrium while another has not. Any attempt to fix such a point would essentially be whimsy. Witness the IAU's thrashing about over whether Sedna and Quaoar are dwarf planets.


So it is the IAU that is going against convention here. If they amend only this one area to include dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, a lot of the controversy will likely go away.

Really? You think Neil deGrasse Tyson is going to put Pluto back in his exhibit? Many people are just as passionate to demote Pluto as you are to save it. All that would happen is that the controversy would shift to the other side. You want the debate to go away, back down.

[V_Zhd]

Well, I was just at an hour-long Q&A session for Tyson (although I didn't ask any of the questions). He was a very charismatic, intelligent, and entertaining speaker! His main lecture is later today, and now I'm looking forward to it even more.

He talked mostly about the importance of popularizing science in addition to doing the usual research work. He has a strong belief that it's a scientist's duty to make others aware of developments in the field, and was disappointed that other scientists didn't take it more seriously (although he admits astronomy is much easier than other sciences, like physics, to present to a layman). It didn't seem that he particularly liked being famous, but he obviously loved to get to know people. He also answered questions about science in TV shows/movies (which he thought was great, even if some of it is incorrect), advice about education, 2012, and even talked about Phil Plait for maybe three minutes.

He didn't talk too much about his appearances on TV. He mentioned something about how he solved a Rubik's Cube lying around backstage after the Jon Stewart interview last week (because it's wrong to leave an unsolved cube laying around). After learning about that, Stewart made a reference about it the next show. They took a photo of him with the completed cube in the morning, and took another one after jumbling the cube up again to make it look like it was the previous night.

[laurele]

I don't think I'm a spambot, so yes, that comment was a joke. If I'm a computer program, I'm the last to know.

No way am I ever backing down on this. The IAU definition is wrong; the process used to arrive at it was wrong; and not distinguishing objects in hydrostatic equilibrium from shapeless asteroids is wrong.

We cannot look at the solar system only from a dynamics point of view. The composition of objects, or what they are, must be given just as much credence as where they are. Hydrostatic equilibrium is not arbitrary. It is a significant measure because it is when objects become geologically differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, just like the larger planets, and develop geological processes such as volcanism, again like the larger planets. FYI, I believe the round moons of planets should be considered "secondary planets."

There will always be some objects that fall in the borderlines of any definition. Vesta, Quaoar and Sedna might be among them. Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake and Eris are not. They are without question spherical.

A rival group, if formed, would not be centered on Pluto but on the burgeoning subfield of planetary science as distinct from other fields of astronomy. As such, it would be composed largely of planetary geologists--again, those who study the composition of these individual objects.

How does it make sense to adopt a definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another? That's what the IAU definition does. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, it would not be considered a planet. That far from the sun, only a gas giant could dominate its orbit.

Tyson does not have to follow what the IAU or any group decrees. On the other hand, other planetariums do not have to follow what Tyson does. Even if Tyson changes nothing at the Rose Center, the IAU, by following standard convention in astronomy and declaring dwarf planets to be a subclass of planets, would satisfy a lot of people on both sides of the issue because both dynamics and geological composition would be given equal consideration in the definition.

I don't simply want the debate to "go away." I want a broad definition of the term planet based on hydrostatic equilibrium with multiple subcategories to distinguish types of planets, dynamics, and various other characteristics.

[parallaxicality]

Internal differentiation is not a necessary by-product of hydrostatic equilibrium. Many roundish objects in the Solar System are not and have never been geologically active. Mimas and Miranda spring to mind. Ultimately its a cosmetic difference. There are slightly less round rocks and slightly more round rocks. If you want to focus on those objects that are geologically active, then you'd have to go a step above mere hydrostatic equilibrium.


A rival group, if formed, would not be centered on Pluto but on the burgeoning subfield of planetary science as distinct from other fields of astronomy. As such, it would be composed largely of planetary geologists--again, those who study the composition of these individual objects.

So what would happen to all of the IAU's hundreds of decrees on Solar System nomenclature? Are they just going to write over them or is the IAU going to cheerfully hand them over?


How does it make sense to adopt a definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another? That's what the IAU definition does. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, it would not be considered a planet. That far from the sun, only a gas giant could dominate its orbit.

Then why not make Jupiter and Saturn stars? Compositionally they're no different from the Sun; it's just that they don't fuse, just as many round rocks aren't geologically active.



I don't simply want the debate to "go away." I want a broad definition of the term planet based on hydrostatic equilibrium with multiple subcategories to distinguish types of planets, dynamics, and various other characteristics.

In other words, you want to win. Fair enough. But take a long hard look at Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine before deciding to carry on the conflict indefinitely. The end result could simply be poison for both sides.

[V_Zhd]

Tyson was an interesting speaker. He told lots of jokes and made sure that the lecture was not about content in his books. Maybe it was because of the topic of the presentation (Science Literacy), but he seemed much more aggressive than on TV. He didn't talk about cosmology until the last few slides. The rest of the stuff included the periodic table, American progress in science, and recent engineering disasters. I think he wanted average person to realize that there was more to astrophysics than they thought, but have them find out the details on their own (i.e. through his books). Anyways, at least I got his newest book and had it signed.

[Gillianren]

I don't think I'm a spambot, so yes, that comment was a joke.

That doesn't logically follow, you know.

[laurele]

Parallaxicality, I don't think there is any danger of bloodshed due to the Pluto debate, meaning the comparison with Northern Ireland and the Middle East is not valid. Having the debate go on means accepting that for the time being, until we know more about bodies like Pluto and Ceres, there will be continuing discussions, and multiple interpretations out there on this issue. I don't see this as a problem and don't understand how it could be "poison" for both sides. If you think supporters of hydrostatic equilibrium being the hallmark of planethood will just passively accept a decree we feel is wrong, I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Objects become geologically differentiated when they become massive enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium. The difference between these and inert, shapeless rocks is not just "cosmetic."

Fusing hydrogen is the defining feature of stars. Again, we're talking about internal activity here. An gaseous object that does not fuse is not a star. Recently, astronomers have recognized a middle category between planets and stars, brown dwarfs, which fuse deuterium. Because they conduct fusion, they are usually put in the "star" rather than "planet" category. How an object behaves, what processes occur within it are just as important as its composition and its interaction with other objects in its location.

I doubt a planetary science group would take issue with non-controversial, procedural IAU decisions that have never been disputed. Such a group, if formed, would be done not for the sake of snubbing the IAU but to assure that planetary scientists are at the forefront of determining current and future issues in planetary science.

I'm guessing that the data that comes in from Dawn about Ceres and from New Horizons about Pluto, both in 2015, will significantly alter the landscape of this debate.

[parallaxicality]

Since this debate isn't scientific, it isn't going to be resolved by more science. This is a debate about meanings and cultural significances: which lights in our sky are to be bestowed with that magical word "planet" that makes people respect and love them. At that level it bears more of a resemblance to astrology than astronomy. Both definitions are equally valid scientifically, so ultimately what this is about is a tribal scrap over intellectual territory.

BTW, I know what brown dwarfs are, and there's a debate over whether they should be considered stars or not. For future reference, please see this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet), which I wrote. If there's anything you want to argue that isn't on there already, you can be fairly certain I don't know about it.

[laurele]

I agree that both planet definitions are equally valid scientifically. We may very well have to accept the two existing side by side, with the explanation that interpretations differ based on the viewpoint and research specialty of those making those interpretations. I don't see any problem with that.

[Gillianren]

I agree that both planet definitions are equally valid scientifically. We may very well have to accept the two existing side by side, with the explanation that interpretations differ based on the viewpoint and research specialty of those making those interpretations. I don't see any problem with that.

I do. You go ahead and teach that to second-graders and see how far you get. Even the general public, come to that. You have to pick one in order to have it understandable to non-scientists. Heck, the general public doesn't even get the scientific definition of "theory."

[pumpkinpie]

Ditto, Gillianren. I was about to make a similar comment. I teach astronomy in a planetarium, and can have up to 50 different classes in a week. Kids love Pluto, and always want to learn about it. I ask, "What is Pluto." I get a mix of "Not a planet" and "Dwarf Planet." That's good--they have learned that it changed. But then I ask "what does that mean?" and of course they are silent. So it's up to me to explain why the "dwarf planet" Pluto is not a "planet." It doesn't matter if they know *what* it's called, if they don't understand why.

At first I was completely in agreement with the IAU decision, based on the fact that it is so completely different than either the gas planets or the rocky planets, so it should be in a separate category. But I think that's where the IAU seriously dropped the ball. If it's not a planet, don't include the word planet! That's the most complicating factor here.

If it were up to me, I'd call it a kuiperoid. Here's why: I go through the discovery of Ceres, calling it a planet, the subsequent discoveries of more and more rocks (mostly) between Mars and Jupiter, to the reassigning it as an object in the asteroid belt.

That's so similar to the discovery of Pluto, calling it a planet, the subsequent discoveries of more and more icy rocks beyond Neptune, to the reassigning it as an object in the Kuiper Belt.

If there is to be a separate distinction of round vs not round, that's fine. But it shouldn't be the primary designation. It's a kuiperoid that happens to be round, so we also call it a dwarf planet (and a Plutoid, and a TNO, and a.....)


The most important thing I've learned: Planet or not, everybody loves Pluto!!!

[George]

Yes, "dwarf planet" sounds like it should be a type of planet, and if we follow the conventions of astronomy (dwarf stars are still stars; dwarf galaxies are still galaxies), then this would be true. But the IAU vote specifically precluded it when resolution 5b, which would have established that both "classical planets" and "dwarf planets" fall under the umbrella of planets, was voted down 333-93. Sffo it is the IAU that is going against convention here. If they amend only this one area to include dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, a lot of the controversy will likely go away. Interesting. What was their reasoning against it?

I like your argument that shows that Earth would also be demoted from planethood if it were to be placed in the Kuiper Belt. My guess, however, is that if an Earth-sized planet were in the Kuiper Belt it would have cleared-out a path. Is this not likely?
[I've been gone and am rushing still.]

[laurele]

An Earth sized object in the Kuiper Belt would likely not be able to clear its orbit, as that orbit covers a vast area, being so far from the sun, where there are a whole lot of KBOs. Even Earth in its current orbit has asteroids in its orbital path.

It's not clear the IAU gave any reasoning for their saying a dwarf planet is not a planet. Some who spoke against the resolution that would have made dwarf planets a subclass of planets went back to the dynamical argument in which they emphasized that the new definition was meant to exclude non-dynamically dominant objects from planet status. It is noteworthy that many who voted for the resolution establishing the dwarf planet category also voted for the umbrella resolution that, had it passed, would have made dwarf planets a subcategory of planets.

I strongly disagree that kids can't understand the concept of there being two schools of thought. An important part of education is teaching children how to reason and explaining that people coming from different perspectives can come to different conclusions. Kids also understand that we still don't know much about a tiny object very far away. My five-year-old nephew has no problem understanding this. Sometimes we don't give kids enough credit for their thinking skills.

In my astronomy club, I teach kids that there is a debate and that I believe dwarf planets are simply small planets. I also make it clear that many astronomers do not agree with the change that was made and that no one has a monopoly on determining what a planet is. I also use the example of Ceres as a wrongful demotion. Ceres was demoted to an asteroid because it appeared only as a point of light in 19th century telescopes, but today, we can tell it is round and therefore should be considered a small planet. Kids and adults understand the roundness aspect and how that distinguishes planets from non-planets. They also understand that during their lifetimes, these definitions are bound to change time and again as more is learned about these objects.

In our club, we have people of differing opinions, and on our open public nights, visitors are exposed to advocates of both sides and arguments for both sides. I try to get them excited about New Horizons and how when it gets to Pluto, it will give us a lot of new information that will help us better understand just what Pluto is.

[George]

An Earth sized object in the Kuiper Belt would likely not be able to clear its orbit, as that orbit covers a vast area, being so far from the sun, where there are a whole lot of KBOs. Even Earth in its current orbit has asteroids in its orbital path. It would be interesting to see those well versed in celestial mechanics address this point. My guess is that Earth (500x more massive) would have a distinctly cleared orbit -- a little dust under the rug is allowable, of course.


It is noteworthy that many who voted for the resolution establishing the dwarf planet category also voted for the umbrella resolution that, had it passed, would have made dwarf planets a subcategory of planets. That makes sense and it seems like it might be the best target of debate for the next IAU meeting.

[Gillianren]

I strongly disagree that kids can't understand the concept of there being two schools of thought. An important part of education is teaching children how to reason and explaining that people coming from different perspectives can come to different conclusions. Kids also understand that we still don't know much about a tiny object very far away. My five-year-old nephew has no problem understanding this. Sometimes we don't give kids enough credit for their thinking skills.

So you're disputing the information from the person who had experience with an entire class of kids? I'm not saying there are not individual kids who can learn it. I'm saying that, again, the general public cannot tell you the scientific definition of theory, which is something you learn in school. And, frankly, that's a much simpler concept than "Pluto is both a planet and not a planet."

[laurele]

So you're disputing the information from the person who had experience with an entire class of kids? I'm not saying there are not individual kids who can learn it. I'm saying that, again, the general public cannot tell you the scientific definition of theory, which is something you learn in school. And, frankly, that's a much simpler concept than "Pluto is both a planet and not a planet."

It all depends on how the subject is taught. At the Great Planet Debate, organizers illustrated lesson plans for both elementary and high school students which focused on "teaching the controversy." Kids can understand that, especially when we don't know that much about a subject, people can have differing points of view. The exercises in the lesson plans actually have the kids do exactly what scientists do--consider the many factors involved--and have their own discussion/debate. Part of the lesson is having them realize that they are doing the same thing scientists do, that they are capable of the same thought processes and reasoning. Since my copies of the lesson plans are on paper, I recommend going to either the site of the Great Planet Debate or New Horizons for examples of these lessons. I can also put you in touch with Dr. Hal Weaver, who organized the Great Planet Debate and likely has electronic copies.

[parallaxicality]

Oh great. Teach the controversy? The Intelligent Designers are going to love that.

[pumpkinpie]

It all depends on how the subject is taught. At the Great Planet Debate, organizers illustrated lesson plans for both elementary and high school students which focused on "teaching the controversy." Kids can understand that, especially when we don't know that much about a subject, people can have differing points of view. The exercises in the lesson plans actually have the kids do exactly what scientists do--consider the many factors involved--and have their own discussion/debate. Part of the lesson is having them realize that they are doing the same thing scientists do, that they are capable of the same thought processes and reasoning. Since my copies of the lesson plans are on paper, I recommend going to either the site of the Great Planet Debate or New Horizons for examples of these lessons. I can also put you in touch with Dr. Hal Weaver, who organized the Great Planet Debate and likely has electronic copies.

I think that's a great idea for high schoolers, but it would be very hard to make it standard in an elementary classroom. For most of the elementary classes I see, their only astronomy exposure that year (sometimes those 6 years) is the 30-45 minutes they are in the dome with me. And usually the teachers end up learning more than the kids do. (An adult learning something is good, of course, but it's too bad so many don't already know much about astronomy.) I'm not saying it can't be done by good, dedicated teachers. But there need to be two levels of teaching this lesson. For most groups, there's only time for "New discoveries in the solar system have led to a reorganization of the objects in it." Then on to the next topic!

[laurele]

Oh great. Teach the controversy? The Intelligent Designers are going to love that.

Not the same thing. The planet definition issue is not about faith; it's about distinguishing facts from interpretation of facts. ID is a belief that cannot be "proven" scientifically. The definition of planet is one where the science itself does not lead to one clear conclusion because ultimately, "planet" is a subjective term. We can define with certainty what concepts like "gravitational dominance" and "hydrostatic equilibrium" mean. Whether either, both, or neither make an object a planet is a subjective statement.

The "teach the controversy" is promoted by scientists at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab--a far cry from the "Answers in Genesis" museum.

[laurele]

I think that's a great idea for high schoolers, but it would be very hard to make it standard in an elementary classroom. For most of the elementary classes I see, their only astronomy exposure that year (sometimes those 6 years) is the 30-45 minutes they are in the dome with me. And usually the teachers end up learning more than the kids do. (An adult learning something is good, of course, but it's too bad so many don't already know much about astronomy.) I'm not saying it can't be done by good, dedicated teachers. But there need to be two levels of teaching this lesson. For most groups, there's only time for "New discoveries in the solar system have led to a reorganization of the objects in it." Then on to the next topic!

The lack of exposure to astronomy is a deficiency of our educational system, where schools are bogged down in a sea of standardized tests, leading to a large portion of teaching focusing only on what is on those tests. It doesn't mean that kids, even in elementary school, are incapable of learning the concept of an existing controversy. There are training programs for classroom teachers, planetarium personnel, astronomy club members, and others who teach astronomy to kids that conduct workshops about astronomy education. In Union County, NJ, there is a program that pairs amateur astronomers with kindergarten teachers in a day long workshop on just this subject. The teachers then use the teaching methods they learned to conduct an astronomy lesson in their classrooms.

[Gillianren]

The lack of exposure to astronomy is a deficiency of our educational system, where schools are bogged down in a sea of standardized tests, leading to a large portion of teaching focusing only on what is on those tests. It doesn't mean that kids, even in elementary school, are incapable of learning the concept of an existing controversy. There are training programs for classroom teachers, planetarium personnel, astronomy club members, and others who teach astronomy to kids that conduct workshops about astronomy education. In Union County, NJ, there is a program that pairs amateur astronomers with kindergarten teachers in a day long workshop on just this subject. The teachers then use the teaching methods they learned to conduct an astronomy lesson in their classrooms.

I'm going to point out, again, that most people are taught the scientific definition of the word "theory" in school. I quite clearly remember copying out definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis." However, if you asked my classmates later what the difference was, or other people taught out of the same book, evidence shows that most of them wouldn't know. And you want to take an esoteric argument, one much less simple and explicable, and have the general public know what it is?

Besides, you do know that teachers generally have to pay out-of-pocket for training, right?

[parallaxicality]

Not the same thing. The planet definition issue is not about faith; it's about distinguishing facts from interpretation of facts.

No it isn't; it's a competition between two different interpretations of facts


ID is a belief that cannot be "proven" scientifically.

Neither can the debate over whose definition is "better".


The definition of planet is one where the science itself does not lead to one clear conclusion because ultimately, "planet" is a subjective term.

Agreed. So why can't we just settle on one definition?


We can define with certainty what concepts like "gravitational dominance" and "hydrostatic equilibrium" mean.

Actually, we can't. There is no one point at which an object can be said to be either gravitationally dominant or in hydrostatic equilibrium. Any attempt to set a limit would be arbitrary.


The "teach the controversy" is promoted by scientists at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab--a far cry from the "Answers in Genesis" museum.

But this is still a debate about faith rather than science.

[tracer]

I vote we eliminate Pluto from the Solar System entirely. Anybody want to help me build a Death Star?

[laurele]

Teaching the difference between facts and interpretation of those facts is a lesson in and of itself. I absolutely don't agree on "settling on one definition." I think kids actually learn more if they have to study the facts, come to their own conclusion, and support that conclusion with a well thought out argument. Obviously, this would be done at a very different level in high school than in elementary school. As far as training, there is free training offered by some astronomy clubs, planetariums, and IYA outreach programs.

[laurele]

On a more lighthearted note, here's a web site that proposes a different planet definition:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/demoteearth/solar_system.png&imgrefurl=http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/demoteearth/&usg=__w60Umw4XFvhvDdbT5mhtx_MJq4g=&h=474&w=600&sz=69&hl=en&start=159&sig2=NPzvGTP8nH6UC1GYfHec4w&um=1&tbnid=h585rnYYFXvcUM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=135&ei=ujaIScnCO9W_tgfwjezOCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsolar%2Bsystem%26start%3D140%26ndsp%3 D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

[Disinfo Agent]

Ditto, Gillianren. I was about to make a similar comment. I teach astronomy in a planetarium, and can have up to 50 different classes in a week. Kids love Pluto, and always want to learn about it. I ask, "What is Pluto." I get a mix of "Not a planet" and "Dwarf Planet." That's good--they have learned that it changed. But then I ask "what does that mean?" and of course they are silent. So it's up to me to explain why the "dwarf planet" Pluto is not a "planet." It doesn't matter if they know *what* it's called, if they don't understand why.

At first I was completely in agreement with the IAU decision, based on the fact that it is so completely different than either the gas planets or the rocky planets, so it should be in a separate category. But I think that's where the IAU seriously dropped the ball. If it's not a planet, don't include the word planet! That's the most complicating factor here.Rather than discussing terminology, how about explaining the facts?

If I were in your place, instead of saying "It's not a planet because..." I would frame it like this:


1) It used to be that people thought Pluto was as isolated in the solar system as Earth, or Mars. So, they called it a 'planet', as they had called Earth and Mars.

2) But in the last couple of decades new discoveries have shown that there are many other objects in the same region of the solar system with similar features to Pluto, and (it is believed) a similar origin. This group of objects, which is a lot like the Asteroid Belt in the inner solar system, has been named the Kuiper Belt.

3) We can learn useful things about Pluto if we think of it as part of the Kuiper Belt, rather than as an isolated object. So, pragmatically, it makes more sense to group Pluto together with other KBOs than with the other planets.

4) This situation is not unprecedented. Non-planetary objects in the solar system have been known for centuries. For example, the comets. Many comets have eccentric orbits that extend way beyond Neptune's (as does Pluto), and they've always been placed in a distinct category than the planets.

5) Another example are the asteroids in the Asteroid Belt. The first ones to be discovered (Ceres, Vesta, etc.) were called planets, but when it became clear that there was a whole host of them, people felt it was more informative to speak of them as a group, and gradually stopped calling them 'planets'.

6) Pluto today is in a situation very much like that of Ceres or Vesta in the early 19th century. We had thought it was a unique planet, but we've just realised that it's actually one among many in a new league of objects. It's a transitional stage when people aren't quite sure what to call it anymore. But, regardless of whether we decide to keep calling Pluto a 'planet' or not, what truly matters is the relationship we've discovered between it and the rest of the KBOs.

7) Remember to note that Pluto isn't even the largest known KBO anymore.
I find this kind of 'historical retrospect' approach to changes in terminology more useful and more educational than the 'axiomatic/definitional' approach which everyone else seems to be taking in this thread.

[pumpkinpie]

Rather than discussing terminology, how about explaining the facts?


I do. If I have enough time, I discuss every point you mention, except for #4. I especially like to make the comparison to the discoveries of Ceres and Vesta, and that Ceres was considered a planet for 100 years! I even go back further to describe the evolution of the word planet, to when the Sun and Moon were included, but Earth wasn't.

In the post of mine you quoted, I said "It doesn't matter if they know *what* it's called, if they don't understand why." I make sure they understand the why. Names/categories/terminology are meaningless if you don't understand how they describe the objects belonging to them.

[Disinfo Agent]

In the post of mine you quoted, I said "It doesn't matter if they know *what* it's called, if they don't understand why." I make sure they understand the why. Names/categories/terminology are meaningless if you don't understand how they describe the objects belonging to them.But I would take it one step further: it doesn't even matter what it's called at all. What matters is the new things we have learned about Pluto recently.

The advantage I see in this approach is that it short-circuits the discussion of whether Pluto 'is' a planet or not altogether. Call it a planet if you like; don't call it a planet if you prefer. That's a matter of convention, to be settled by future generations. Right now, there is still some disagreement on the matter. But understand that Pluto is a very different object from the other planets, and much more like the other KBOs.

[pumpkinpie]

But I would take it one step further: it doesn't even matter what it's called at all. What matters is the new things we have learned about Pluto recently.

The advantage I see in this approach is that it short-circuits the discussion of whether Pluto 'is' a planet or not altogether. Call it a planet if you like; don't call it a planet if you prefer. That's a matter of convention, to be settled by future generations. Right now, there is still some disagreement on the matter. But understand that Pluto is a very different object from the other planets, and much more like the other KBOs.

I disagree that it doesn't matter at all. If that's the case, why bother having categories for ANYTHING? We need some method of organization, and that method is constantly being refined with new discoveries. But no, the characteristics of Pluto do not *depend* on what we call it. It is what it is, and scientists need to do their best with the information they have to either incorporate it into their current model or refine the model to make it, and other new discoveries, fit.

[Disinfo Agent]

I disagree that it doesn't matter at all. If that's the case, why bother having categories for ANYTHING?The point I am trying to make is that, as long as the categorisation is understood, we don't need to be inflexible about the names we give to each of the categories.

[pumpkinpie]

The point I am trying to make is that, as long as the categorisation is understood, we don't need to be inflexible about the names we give to each of the categories.

I agree with you on that. :)

[Disinfo Agent]

And then there's item 8 on the list: Orcus (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/86353-name-orcus-moon.html)!