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/

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

That the classification of homosexuals as being mentally ill was based cultural bias rather then science.  Ok Raz

[Razgovory]

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.

That the classification of homosexuals as being mentally ill was based cultural bias rather then science.  Ok Raz

Yeah, you said that, but offered no proof.

[Berkut]

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.

A bunch of people sitting in a room making a decisions based on scientific principles is certainly based on science.

The fact that many scientific principles have differing levels of persuasiveness doesn't make them not-science.

They might even get it wrong, but that doesn't make it not-science.

[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.

A bunch of people sitting in a room making a decisions based on scientific principles is certainly based on science.

The fact that many scientific principles have differing levels of persuasiveness doesn't make them not-science.

They might even get it wrong, but that doesn't make it not-science.

But it wasn't based on scientific principles.  They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found.  That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was. 

[Valmy]

But it wasn't based on scientific principles.  They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found.  That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was. 

The point was is that like objects were classified together based on shared traits. The fact that the other planets in the neighborhood were all gas giants made it scientifically sketchy to lump Pluto in with those rather than with the objects it more closely shared traits. I do not think it was, therefore, arbitrary but based on reasoning that resulted from observation.

[Martinus]

Here's something for Raz:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/i-am-so-done-with-the-trans-outrage-brigade-why-im-supporting-drop-the-t/

See Raz, don't say I don't care. 

[Valmy]

Wow he said 'trannies'. He is just asking for it.

Ok that was a hilariously un-PC rant. Was that comedy?

[Berkut]

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.

A bunch of people sitting in a room making a decisions based on scientific principles is certainly based on science.

The fact that many scientific principles have differing levels of persuasiveness doesn't make them not-science.

They might even get it wrong, but that doesn't make it not-science.

But it wasn't based on scientific principles.  They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found.  That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was. 

That makes no sense.

The concept of a planet has always included the idea that planets have a definition that includes some characteristics that make them significant in a solar system. It is not arbitrary to decide that an object that is on the very margins of being "like the others" doesn't actually fit in with them when additional data comes out that makes it clear that if you expand the definition such that it can include that outlier, that it would then include literally hundreds of other outliers - and in fact the objects that previously defined the term would then become the outliers!

In other words, the term planet had scientific meaning, and included a bunch of objects that had similar characteristics. Pluto barely fit into those characteristics, but was allowed to be in the set because, well, why not. It doesn't really matter that much if there are 8 planets or 9, because they all still fit within a reasonable range.

Once you realize that in fact Pluto is not the smallest planet, but rather a very typical object in a class of objects of which there are hundreds, then if we accept that Pluto is a planet, we have to accept all those other objects as planets as well.

At that point, the actual definition of a planet has radically changed, and now the 8 "traditional" planets are not even "planets" anymore, since they are the bizarre examples in the set of planets that would demand some other label to describe them since they are clearly different from the hundreds of pluto-like objects.

This is all completely part of what we call "science". Defining objects, sets of objects, their characteristics, what they have in common, what they do not have in common, and what that tells us is all very much NOT arbitrary.

[crazy canuck]

But it wasn't based on scientific principles.  They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found.  That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was. 

The point was is that like objects were classified together based on shared traits. The fact that the other planets in the neighborhood were all gas giants made it scientifically sketchy to lump Pluto in with those rather than with the objects it more closely shared traits. I do not think it was, therefore, arbitrary but based on reasoning that resulted from observation.

Yes, that was the rationale.  But there was also a competing logic which was equally scientifically valid that the objects with shared traits included Pluto and those other objects along with the other planets.  That position was rejected not on scientific grounds.  Both were equally scientifically valid.

[The Brain]

A great many things that are useful and based on science are not science.

[Berkut]

But it wasn't based on scientific principles.  They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found.  That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was. 

The point was is that like objects were classified together based on shared traits. The fact that the other planets in the neighborhood were all gas giants made it scientifically sketchy to lump Pluto in with those rather than with the objects it more closely shared traits. I do not think it was, therefore, arbitrary but based on reasoning that resulted from observation.

Yes, that was the rationale.  But there was also a competing logic which was equally scientifically valid that the objects which shared traits would include Pluto and those other objects with the other planets.  That position was rejected not on scientific grounds.  Both were equally scientifically valid.

So, it is your expert opinion as a lawyer that the scientists were all wrong in their analysis of the scientific validity, and you are right?

[Valmy]

A great many things that are useful and based on science are not science.

True. Classification is not science but it is not arbitrary either.

[crazy canuck]

The concept of a planet has always included the idea that planets have a definition that includes some characteristics that make them significant in a solar system. It is not arbitrary to decide that an object that is on the very margins of being "like the others" doesn't actually fit in with them when additional data comes out that makes it clear that if you expand the definition such that it can include that outlier, that it would then include literally hundreds of other outliers - and in fact the objects that previously defined the term would then become the outliers!

So are you saying that all the scientists who thought that Pluto and those other bodies should be categorized as planets didn't know what they were talking about?  A decision was made where the dividing line should be if for no other reason that the majority thought that having more planets was problematic

[Berkut]

A great many things that are useful and based on science are not science.

Fair enough, but at the same time, saying they are arbitrary implies something that is simply not accurate.

[Berkut]

The concept of a planet has always included the idea that planets have a definition that includes some characteristics that make them significant in a solar system. It is not arbitrary to decide that an object that is on the very margins of being "like the others" doesn't actually fit in with them when additional data comes out that makes it clear that if you expand the definition such that it can include that outlier, that it would then include literally hundreds of other outliers - and in fact the objects that previously defined the term would then become the outliers!

So are you saying that all the scientists who thought that Pluto and those other bodies should be categorized as planets didn't know what they were talking about?  A decision was made where the dividing line should be if for no other reason that the majority thought that having more planets was problematic

Who are all these scientists demanding that Pluto be called a planet?

I've worked with planetary scientists. I can assure you they could not care less what you call Pluto, or anything around what people call things.

I imagine when the IAU came along and said "Hey, it doesn't really work to call Pluto a planet, since that means that the set of 'planets' becomes a set of things most of which are actually nothing like the things we used to call planets" they mostly shrugged and went back to work.

So now we have "planets" divided into "terrestrial", "jovian", and "dwarf". So what?