... doesn't always come around.
At least one of my "on this day" sources (later
reliably corroborated by, what else?, a Google search) tells me that it was
on this day, precisely one year ago (in 2005) that scientists discovered a (or
should that be "the"?) tenth planet orbiting around the sun. There still
(or perhaps "again of late") seems to be a
debate over whether or not Pluto actually is a planet, or instead only a very
large Kupier Belt Object (KBO). That being the case, has whoever authorized the
formal reporting on the discovery of a tenth planet definitively determined
that the ninth planet is actually what it's claimed to be?
Apparently
not. Though the debate goes on, it seems that neither side in the astronomical
community wants to force the other side's hand. Determining whether Pluto is or
isn't a planet rests on determining precisely just what a planet actually is,
and a definitive definition isn't that easy to come by. One
very informative page gives both sides of the issue, but stops before making
a call.
When I was a school kid, pouring over astronomy books that probably
had as much to do with science fiction as they did with actual astronomy, Pluto
was still very much a planet, but for years I've known that its planetary status
has been questioned. A February, 1998 article in the Atlantic Monthly (When is
a Planet Not a Planet? by David H. Freedman - sadly not publicly available on
the web) points out that a precise classification isn't only a matter of science,
but of public opinion as well:Is Pluto truly a planet?
A growing number of solar-system scientists assert that Pluto's minuteness and
its membership in a swarm of like objects mean that it should be classified a
"minor planet," as asteroids and comets are. Others are outraged by the idea,
insisting that regardless of how its identity has changed, demoting Pluto would
dishonor astronomical history and confuse the public. In the end, the debate boils
down to this question: What compromises in precision should scientists make in
the name of tradition, sentiment, and good public relations?
Freedman
quotes astronomer David Levy who gives an important, but hardly astronomical,
perspective to the debate. Demoting Pluto would be:disrespectful
to the public, Levy argues, and to children in particular. "Kids like Pluto,"
he says. The story of Ceres's [the largest of the asteroids in the asteroid belt]
demotion isn't relevant, he claims, given that the public has never really thought
of Ceres as a planet. Rather, he holds up the case of the brontosaurus. Early
in the century paleontologists realized that the apatosaurus and the brontosaurus
were actually the same creature; one of them had to go. Taxonomic convention dictates
that the first- named species-in this case, the apatosaurus-subsume the second.
And so it was that scientists dutifully declared the much-admired brontosaurus
nonexistent. "Sure it's a rule, but every kid knows what a brontosaurus is,"
Levy says. "Why couldn't they have made an exception?" The brontosaurus
has, of course, proved unsinkable in common usage. If astronomers ignore Pluto's
place in popular culture, Levy warns, then popular culture could ignore them.
This
would seem to be enough for a date tie-in. But in the spirit of this month's column,
it's hard to stop here. Pluto's status, after all, offers us a good opportunity
to observe how the Wikipedia deals with the issue. Although the question of Pluto's
planetary status is a hotly debated issue, the debate rages (if that's the right
word) almost solely in the scientific community. Does the
Wikipedia article reflect that debate? Does it take sides? Or does it perhaps
harken back to the 1950s when science seemed much surer of the way it defined
things. From my own, non-astronomer's perspective, I'm very impressed with the
article. It seems not only comprehensive but also fair to the opposing sides of
the debate. No less interesting is the fact that it has gone through hundreds
of edits since it first appeared as a short and concise article in March of 2002,
blossoming into an impressive source that (to my mind at least) could be used
as a reference. That being said, a glance at the
discussion page about the article suggests that just below the surface of
this calm and well considered encyclopedia entry lies a heated argument waiting
to explode.
Go to: Having fun