Dept of Education declares that school must allow boy to shower with girls

[crazy canuck]

The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.

/Valmy/ STOP making snide comments about classification  /Valmy/

[Malthus]

That's a very persuasive argument.

It is, isn't it. Marty came up with a pretty good test. 

[Razgovory]

The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.

Classification has no place in science!  We should be free to define species and phenomenon however we like.

[The Brain]

The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.

Classification has no place in science!  We should be free to define species and phenomenon however we like.

[Razgovory]

Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".

[crazy canuck]

Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".

A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called.  At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.

[frunk]

A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called.  At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.

Is the definition better than what was used before?  Yes because it is more precise with less ambiguity.  Could there have been other definitions that categorized Pluto as a planet and were also less ambiguous than the previous definition?  Sure.  It's arbitrary in the same sense as how we decided on how long a meter is.  It originally had a few different ways of being determined, until the modern definition of the distance light travels in a vacuum in a fraction of a second.  It could have been easily defined as a different fraction but the important element is the clarity of communication in such definitions not how arbitrary or not the definition is.

[crazy canuck]

A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called.  At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.

Is the definition better than what was used before?  Yes because it is more precise with less ambiguity.  Could there have been other definitions that categorized Pluto as a planet and were also less ambiguous than the previous definition?  Sure.  It's arbitrary in the same sense as how we decided on how long a meter is.  It originally had a few different ways of being determined, until the modern definition of the distance light travels in a vacuum in a fraction of a second.  It could have been easily defined as a different fraction but the important element is the clarity of communication in such definitions not how arbitrary or not the definition is.

Using the definition of how to measure a meter isn't a very good analogy.  The problem with that definition is that until we were able to create precise measuring tools we had to use less precise tools.  The problem with whether or not to define Pluto as a planet has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use.  The cut off point of when something is a planet or not is entirely arbitrary.

I agree that clarity is important.  But that misses the point made earlier entirely.  Which is perhaps excusable given how badly Valmy missed the point and took us on this tangent.  Just because psychiatrists in the dark ages of psychiatry had a clear definition of homosexuality being a mental illness does not make the definition any less arbitrary or invalid.

[frunk]

Using the definition of how to measure a meter isn't a very good analogy.  The problem with that definition is that until we were able to create precise measuring tools we had to use less precise tools.  The problem with whether or not to define Pluto as a planet has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use.  The cut off point of when something is a planet or not is entirely arbitrary.

Picking which fraction of time that light travels also has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use.  It could be 1/299,792,458 of a second or 1/300,000,000 and it would be just as valid as long as its usage was consistent.  This definition could have been used from the very beginning and been just as valid, it just wasn't necessary (or practical).  The definition was changed for the meter because we needed a more precise definition, similarly the definition of a planet was changed because we needed a more precise definition. 

[Razgovory]

Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".

A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called.  At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.

I was thinking along the lines of mental illness...

[crazy canuck]

Using the definition of how to measure a meter isn't a very good analogy.  The problem with that definition is that until we were able to create precise measuring tools we had to use less precise tools.  The problem with whether or not to define Pluto as a planet has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use.  The cut off point of when something is a planet or not is entirely arbitrary.

Picking which fraction of time that light travels also has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use.  It could be 1/299,792,458 of a second or 1/300,000,000 and it would be just as valid as long as its usage was consistent.  This definition could have been used from the very beginning and been just as valid, it just wasn't necessary (or practical).  The definition was changed for the meter because we needed a more precise definition, similarly the definition of a planet was changed because we needed a more precise definition.

I can understand why a precise definition is needed for a unit of measurement.  But I think we are getting into a debate of precision vs accuracy now.  Sure the measurement for a planet is more precise but is it necessarily accurate?  Just as the definition for homosexuality being a mental illness was precise but not at all accurate.

[Razgovory]

I can understand why a precise definition is needed for a unit of measurement.  But I think we are getting into a debate of precision vs accuracy now.  Sure the measurement for a planet is more precise but is it necessarily accurate?  Just as the definition for homosexuality being a mental illness was precise but not at all accurate.

Why was it not accurate?  What is your standard that medicine failed to see?

[grumbler]

The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.

As is the idea that decisions on classification are arbitrary.

[grumbler]

A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called.  At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.

That may be your narrative, but it is a canard.  No one voted on what Pluto was going to be called. 

The relevant committee of the IAU voted on whether to extend the classification of "planet" to the hundreds of Pluto-like objects that had been discovered, or were expected to shortly be discovered, and decided, for good scientific reasons, not to do so.  They instead created the classifications of "planets" and "dwarf planets."  DPs are believed to be significantly different from planets in both origin and composition.  Pluto was clearly assigned to the classification that matched its known characteristics most closely.  There was no scientific basis whatsoever to call Pluto a planet and not call all of the other Pluto-like bodies planets as well. 

The record is clear on this.  Your belief that the change in Pluto's classification was arbitrary is unsupported by any of the evidence.  Even those who want Pluto reclassified don't argue that it is more like Neptune or Mars than it is like Ceres, Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Haumea, etc. Theirs is the unscientific view.

[grumbler]

Is the definition better than what was used before?  Yes because it is more precise with less ambiguity.  Could there have been other definitions that categorized Pluto as a planet and were also less ambiguous than the previous definition?  Sure.  It's arbitrary in the same sense as how we decided on how long a meter is.  (snip)

Take a look at the orbit of Pluto and tell me that its exclusion from the same classification as the eight planets is arbitrary.