Conversation

Notices

1. 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 10:34:49 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   Is Pluto a planet?

   [ ] Yes
   [ ] No
   [ ] No opinion

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 repeated this.
   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 10:44:03 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @Vamp898 Thats a common fallacy, you absolutely can.

     If it is not known whether some assertion is a fact or not to a group of people, then people hold opinions as to what is the fact and what is not.

     So in short determining what is or is not a fact is an opinion.

     In this case we are dealing with something a bit unique though. In 2000 pluto absolutely was a planet, because the definition of planet was choosen in such a way to be inclusive of pluto. Some group decided to redefine that word, which is fine, but it doesnt change anything in the physical world.

     🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 repeated this.
   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 10:49:13 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @null0x0

     Yea, they obviously teach the current consensus towards a definition, which was redefined. Nothing wrong with that but its important to realize we are dealing with a question about semantics, not fact or objective truth. What we call things, as with all language, comes down to usage.

     @Vamp898

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 10:52:33 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Claiming Pluto is not a planet is just body shaming for planets!

     🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 repeated this.
   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 10:55:20 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898
     • ｍｎｇｒｉｆ :kentucky:

     @mngrif

     You get my vote!

     @null0x0 @Vamp898

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 11:00:06 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @georgia Not necceseraly, depends on the definition.

     Also as for no body wanting that, I would certainly be ok with that and it makes way more sense to me.

     Language is decided by historical usage, it isnt something we get to "decide" for words that already exist (only new ones we make).

     As such we already had a definition for the word that included pluto. If they felt the word wasnt useful technically instead of destroying the old word and redefining it what they should have done is came up with a new word they could have assigned any technical definition they wanted to it. Thats how it is done in almost every other discipline of science.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 11:15:03 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @ThisIsLeeloo

     I can dig it :)

     @georgia

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 12:33:53 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @georgia Crafting of definitions are based on usage, we dont get to pick and choose what a definition is for existing words.

     Planet was never a technical term, it was archaic, so they had no right to try to redefine it contrary to its usage. If they wanted a technical term then they should have made up a new term for what they wanted.

     Thats the whole point, you dont get the right to craft definitions for words already in common use, the usage dictates the definition not the other way around.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 12:53:00 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @georgia For reference here is the original (1828) definition for planet. It would include pluto and exclude most kepler objects in its wording. It is the real definition as far as im concerned as it developed through natural usage

     noun [Latin planeta; Gr. wandering, to wander, allied to Latin planus. See Plant.] A celestial body which revolves about the sun or other center, or a body revolving about another planet as its center. The planets which revolve about the sun as their center, are called primary planets; those which revolve about other planets as their center, and with them revolve about the sun, are called secondary planets, satellites or moons. The primary planets are named Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Herschell. Four smaller planets, denominated by some, asteroids, namely, Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta, have recently been discovered between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Herschell, being without the earth's orbit, are sometimes called the superior planets; Venus and Mercury, being within the earth's orbit, are called inferior planets. The planets are opake bodies which receive their light from the sun. They are so named from their motion or revolution, in distinction from the fixed stars, and are distinguished from the latter by their not twinkling.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 12:56:42 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @georgia lol funny but is actually true. Stars scintilate (twinkle), planets dont. Still true today :)

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 17:34:32 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @Vamp898 No I think you are missing the point. Facts are facts, they are immutable, but YOU and no one else gets to say what is a fact or what is not, because that is debatable.

     Yes you can vote if gravity exists because although you may be quite certain it is a fact other people may be quite certain it isnt a fact. Which of these two groups are correct is an opinion, depending on what your opinion is it may be correct or not.

     Your fallacy is assuming that if something is an opinion it cant be a fact, that is untrue.

     For example some people think the universe is a closed system, other people think it is an open system. There exists a fact where one of these two is true, in reality, despite the fact that some fact exists, people argue as to which of these two is actually the fact. So for example the proper thing to say would be "It is my opinion that the universe is an open system". This is the correct way to state that, even though we are talking about something that is either true or false. If you said "It is a fact ..." well you'd just be a pompas ass and trying to assert dominance where it isnt needed.

     Gravity is no different except for the fact that more people agree it is a fact, so you are a lot safer in your opinion of it being fact than not, its more likely to be true. So likely in fact that we may just call it a "fact" for simplicity sake. But in the end it is no different, it is still an opinion about whether it is a fact or not.

     To put it another way.. everything you hold in your head are the opinions about those things you beleive to be fact or not. Nothing more, nothing less.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 17:37:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @Vamp898 Actually thats exactly what they did. It was a **fact** in 2000 that pluto was a planet.. then in 2003 I think it was a bunch of people got together and decided to change around some historically accepted vocabulary to something new. So now in 2019 according to any linguistic system which accepts the new modified definition, it is **now** a fact that it is not a planet.

     But since it was little more than a linguistic revision, and has nothing to do with any fact intrinsic to the material world, it is only true within the linguistic model they created.

     So thats a very weak argument for pluto being a planet in my eyes.As you said facts cant be voted on, yet that is exactly what happened with pluto, you contradicted yourself.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 20:46:54 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Chikara

     @chikara The issue being that words are defined by usage, not committees.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 20:57:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Chikara

     @georgia

     Yea that was probably the date.

     @chikara

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 21:00:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Chikara

     @georgia

     Probably :)

     @chikara

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 21:18:26 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @max

     Well no its not. Science is not anyting that involves consensus, that is just democracy. They are defining a word here, and not based off any discovery or anything we learned experimentally.

     We redefined the word because we liked the new definition better, because it felt more "useful" to us. That isnt science, nothing about that has much to do with science really, its just linguistics.

     What is unique here is they decided to appropriate an existing word, and redefine it to mean something similar but new. Usually when we need new vocabulary words in science for convenience we dont redefine words already in common usage (particularly among non-scientists). We create new ones.

     But yea, in the end, this wasnt really a scientific process in any meaningful way.

     @null0x0 @Vamp898

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 21:28:40 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @max

     Not all consensus is science, all good science involves consensus.

     This was not science it was consensus, the fact that science does involve consensus is irrelevant to that.

     This was us deciding what we wanted the definition of a word to be, again, that has nothing to do with science.

     We didnt discover or learn anything new about planets that resulted in this change. We made the change for no other reason then we liked the new definition better.

     Again that isnt science.

     You seem to be under the impression we learned something new about pluto and then from that determined it wasnt a planet.. No thats not what happened at all. We knew for a VERY long time about plutos orbit and its nature.

     We changed a definition of a word, thats it, nothing was discovered that caused the change.

     I think you dont understand why or what happened that caused planet to be redefined...

     @null0x0 @Vamp898

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 21:31:19 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @max

     Few decades off there buddy...

     I guess when you dont have a leg to stand on and pull dogma out of your ass the only thing you have left to resort to is name calling... way to go, I guess that is going to be the hill you die on.

     @null0x0 @Vamp898

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 21:48:59 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @max

     Few decades off there buddy...

     I guess when you dont have a leg to stand on the only thing you have left to resort to is name calling... way to go, I guess that is going to be the hill you die on.

     @null0x0 @Vamp898

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 22:06:21 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @max

     If we had kept the original definition of a planet then many more objects other than pluto would have been added to the list.. **that** is science, you observe facts, and as you do you admit the consequences of that.

     Thats not how it went down with pluto however. There was nothing in the definition of a planet that would exlude Pluto at the time. Yes, lots of people did want to exclude pluto at the time, but this was motivated more by their bias to not include other objects in the list of planets, rather than strictly adhering to science and admitting they were, in fact, planets as well.

     What happened was because scientists felt uncomfortable with the existing definition which would cause us to have dozens or more planets within our solar system, they wanted to change the definition because they arbitrarily decided they wanted there to be relatively few planets. So instead of using the data to dictate what something is or is not (science) they went the other way around, changed the definition of the word and therefore redefined what was and was not a planet not through science but an arbitrary act of linguistics.

     IF we use the original language for planet, the one that was used prior to 2006, then pluto would simply have been called a "Secondary planet" (along with several other bodies) and the other planets we know of would be "primary planets". This would of course, as a distinction, would have been science, not linguistics, since it was based off discovery rather than an arbitrary act of linguistic gymnastics.

     @null0x0 @Vamp898

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 02-Dec-2019 22:07:16 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Vamp898

     @max

     Its amazing you cant see the problem with "Oh my science just proved there are 10+ more planets than we first knew about, I dont like this so quick lets redefine the word"....

     @null0x0 @Vamp898