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

[frunk]

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

It's inclination and eccentricity are significantly different, but note that the official definition of planet doesn't exclude Pluto because of its orbit being unusual, but because it hasn't "cleared the neighborhood of its orbit".  I think they intentionally wrote the definition to allow for solar systems with unusual planetary orbits.  I agree that if they would have written a definition that considered Pluto a planet it would have also included potentially hundreds of undiscovered trans Neptunian objects.  It's also likely that Pluto has a distinct origin from the planets, but I'm not sure that necessarily should be a criteria for exclusion.

[frunk]

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.

The difference is the reason for the definition.  Precise definition of the meter is important so that measurements can be taken with a minimum of error.  Precise definition of a planet is important so that when referencing objects in scientific papers it will be clear what is being referred to.  In neither case does it change how the things being referred to are treated.  Pluto isn't more or less important now, just has a different label.  Defining homosexuality as a mental illness changes how it is treated, it presumably becomes something that needs to be cured.  That's a horrible mistake, something much worse than refining a measurement or a classification of objects in space.

[grumbler]

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

It's inclination and eccentricity are significantly different, but note that the official definition of planet doesn't exclude Pluto because of its orbit being unusual, but because it hasn't "cleared the neighborhood of its orbit".  I think they intentionally wrote the definition to allow for solar systems with unusual planetary orbits.  I agree that if they would have written a definition that considered Pluto a planet it would have also included potentially hundreds of undiscovered trans Neptunian objects.  It's also likely that Pluto has a distinct origin from the planets, but I'm not sure that necessarily should be a criteria for exclusion.

The official definition of planet is incomplete, but enough to go on for now, because they don't know enough about dwarf planets to really categorize them.  Dwarf planets are suspected to have a different origin process than planets.  There will probably be a number of different types of dwarf planets (Ceres, for instance, isn't the same kind of dwarf planet as Pluto and Eris, IMO).  Pluto is far more like Eris than like any planet; likely this is in origin and composition as well as in eccentricity.  The eccentric orbit and inclination is just another clue.

[grumbler]

The difference is the reason for the definition.  Precise definition of the meter is important so that measurements can be taken with a minimum of error.  Precise definition of a planet is important so that when referencing objects in scientific papers it will be clear what is being referred to.  In neither case does it change how the things being referred to are treated.  Pluto isn't more or less important now, just has a different label.  Defining homosexuality as a mental illness changes how it is treated, it presumably becomes something that needs to be cured.  That's a horrible mistake, something much worse than refining a measurement or a classification of objects in space.

+1

[Ed Anger]

Solution: take kids out in a field and turn the water hose on them.

[sbr]

Solution: take kids out in a field and turn the water hose on them.

I wasn't exactly sure what you were talking about, then realized you solution would solve all of the problems in this thread.

[Ed Anger]

Might need a fire hose to clean off the goths. And the smelly kid that reads the satanic bible in the back of class.

[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.

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.

One of your better attempts at parsing to avoid admitting an error.  Well done!

[Razgovory]

I will take CC's refusal to respond as admission that he doesn't know.

[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.

One of your better attempts at parsing to avoid admitting an error.  Well done!

Since you are conceding my point that I made no error, this should end the debate.  Contrary to your assertion, no "bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called."

[DGuller]

Let's vote on who won this debate.

[Razgovory]

Let's vote on who won this debate.

Okay, I cast a vote for me.  Voting closed.

[grumbler]

Let's vote on who won this debate.

You'll have to list the languishtas who never opened the thread, so we can choose between them.

[The Brain]

What's with the dicsussion of Pluto details?

[Valmy]

The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.

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

I never questioned Brain's point. He is right. I took issue with what you added which I thought was unfair and ridiculous.