Author Topic: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)  (Read 1455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6228
Re: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2018, 04:26:39 PM »
To be an argument from authority one would have to be claiming: x is true because y says it's true.

Or citing a false, misleading, untrustworthy, or non-recognized authority would also be a fallacy.


You, however, are making that claim about the AIU.

The dispute is about the definition of a word. 

The IAU is the official authority tasked with defining and publicizing standard astronomical terminology. As such, they have decided that the official definition of a planet technically excludes Pluto.

Hence, it's not a fallacy to cite the very organization tasked with establishing official terminology as an authority on the terminology.


Didn't even read the abstract

No, because I don't care. I've seen the kind of horseshit that you commonly post as "scientific evidence," and I'm not interested. Just because some schmoes published a paper, that doesn't make it true.

At any rate, it's irrelevant. The IAU is the authority which establishes the official terminology for astronomy. Feel free to contact me after the authors of your paper manage to convince the IAU to change the official definition.


So which is it? The decisions and rulings of the IAU or "consensus opinion"? Or are you arguing that whatever the IAU votes for automatically becomes consensus opinion?

Do you even understand what the IAU is?

Yes, the definitions that the IAU "votes for" are the consensus opinion. Because the IAU is the universally recognized authority that sets the definitions for astronomical terms, by the consensus of professional astronomers.

Just because a few malcontents might disagree and publish dissenting papers, that doesn't negate the official position of the IAU.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 05:03:13 PM by John Albert »

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11303
Re: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2018, 05:27:50 PM »
To be an argument from authority one would have to be claiming: x is true because y says it's true.

Or citing a false, misleading, untrustworthy, or non-recognized authority would also be a fallacy.

If it's not an argument, there  is no fallacy.

Quote


You, however, are making that claim about the AIU.

The dispute is about the definition of a word. 

The IAU is the official authority tasked with defining and publicizing standard astronomical terminology. As such, they have decided that the official definition of a planet technically excludes Pluto.

Hence, it's not a fallacy to cite the very organization tasked with establishing official terminology as an authority on the terminology.

Even then, there is a robust dispute if that's what they have tasked themselves with. They are responsible for naming astronomical things (planets, stars, galaxies, satellites, asteroids, and features of those things). Until the Pluto dispute, they did not determine the classification of such things, just their names.
Quote
Didn't even read the abstract

No, because I don't care. I've seen the kind of horseshit that you commonly post as "scientific evidence," and I'm not interested.

And yet you feel qualified and care enough to make characterize and make claims about their work that even a cursory glance would have told you were false claims.
Quote

At any rate, it's irrelevant. The IAU is the authority which establishes the official terminology for astronomy. Feel free to contact me after the authors of your paper manage to convince the IAU to change the official definition.

Why ?
Quote
So which is it? The decisions and rulings of the IAU or "consensus opinion"? Or are you arguing that whatever the IAU votes for automatically becomes consensus opinion?

Do you even understand what the IAU is?

Yes, the definitions that the IAU "votes for" are the consensus opinion. Because the IAU is the universally recognized authority that sets the definitions for astronomical terms, by the consensus of professional astronomers.

Just because a few malcontents might disagree and publish dissenting papers, that doesn't negate the official position of the IAU.

Malcontents. That's how science works in your mind? Anyone who disagrees with the consensus or has new theories is a malcontent?

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Awatsjr

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
Re: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2018, 01:37:35 AM »
Sooo, how about that ninth (tenth?) planet?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 01:41:27 AM by Awatsjr »

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11303
Re: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2018, 02:21:36 AM »
Sooo, how about that ninth (tenth?) planet?

If it's what they expect (a good sized object) then it may or may not meet the IAU's current definition (It may not clear its own orbit) but it would meet the traditional definition this paper advocates. (FWIW, the paper points out that there are other planets the IAU call planets that do not meet the IAU's definition, ie do not clear their own orbits).

Either way, I'm sure we can count on the IAU giving that planet a catchy name.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6228
Re: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2018, 10:53:19 AM »
Quote
The IAU is the official authority tasked with defining and publicizing standard astronomical terminology. As such, they have decided that the official definition of a planet technically excludes Pluto.

Hence, it's not a fallacy to cite the very organization tasked with establishing official terminology as an authority on the terminology.

Even then, there is a robust dispute if that's what they have tasked themselves with.

Maybe, but whether it affects the official IAU position remains to be seen.


Until the Pluto dispute, they did not determine the classification of such things, just their names.

This is untrue. The IAU holds regular symposia where astronomical industry standards are discussed and decided. Hence, it is also involved in the classifications of stars and designations for other objects such as asteroids, comets, etc.


That's how science works in your mind? Anyone who disagrees with the consensus or has new theories is a malcontent?

No, that is absolutely not how science works.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11303
Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2018, 05:16:55 PM »
Quote
Quote
The IAU is the official authority tasked with defining and publicizing standard astronomical terminology. As such, they have decided that the official definition of a planet technically excludes Pluto.

Hence, it's not a fallacy to cite the very organization tasked with establishing official terminology as an authority on the terminology.

Even then, there is a robust dispute if that's what they have tasked themselves with.

Maybe, but whether it affects the official IAU position remains to be seen.


Until the Pluto dispute, they did not determine the classification of such things, just their names.

This is untrue. The IAU holds regular symposia where astronomical industry standards are discussed and decided. Hence, it is also involved in the classifications of stars and designations for other objects such as asteroids, comets, etc.


That's how science works in your mind? Anyone who disagrees with the consensus or has new theories is a malcontent?
Quote
No, that is absolutely not how science works.

And now your are arguing with yourself.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 06:25:49 PM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7243
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2018, 05:36:51 PM »
I enjoyed their discussion in the latest episode. It was productive.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11303
Re: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2018, 09:35:30 PM »
I enjoyed their discussion in the latest episode. It was productive.

I've got to listen to it. From what I read in another thread they got the paper wrong. They specifically excluded satellites.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11303
Re: Planet Nine found? (not Pluto)
« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2018, 02:01:13 PM »
If you still find this interesting, while the published paper is behind a pay wall, Metzger posted the version he submitted on his web site.

He also has a blog post (where he provides the link to the paper) where he describes the issues pretty clearly.

(Also, I stated a few times that only Pluto would be redefined as a planet by Metzger's definition, but Ceres would as well and there may be a few Kupier belt) But satellites (which orbit planets) would be excluded.



Debunking an Urban Legend of Asteroidal Proportions - Philip Metzger


Quote
It gives a false view of how science operates and why taxonomy even exists in science. It was part of the rationale that was used to justify the IAU voting to redefine the term, planet, which made Pluto and Ceres into non-planets (that is, if we were submitting to the unscientific vote, which many of us are not).  This is all very harmful to science, not just because it propagates an urban legend in place of the truth, but because it gives the impression we make taxonomical decisions through authoritative bodies voting and imposing decisions on individual scientists. It gives the impression that science is supposed to be an authority-driven activity. It suggests that taxonomical categories are fairly arbitrary so voting is a decent way to decide them, or that we can shape them to fit  cultural expectations. “Culture wants a small number of big planets, and picking planet definitions is fairly arbitrary, so let’s just give culture what it wants!” Right? Wrong. That’s not science.




Preprint Asteroids-reclassified as non planets Metzger-et-al

Quote

We recommend that, regarding planetary taxonomy, central bodies such as the IAU do not resort to voting to create the illusion of scientific consensus. The IAU has done damage to the public perception of science as a process that is not dictated by a central authority, in its imposition of a definition of planet and the number of planets fitting that definition, which has been instilled in educational textbooks around the world on the basis of their authority. Rather than voting on any other taxonomical issues, the IAU should simply rescind its planetary (and dwarf planetary) definitions and not replace them with any new definitions. In short, the IAU should simply allow the scientific communities to reach consensus on taxonomies through precedent set in literature and conference proceedings. We further recommend that educational organizations teach students that taxonomy is a vital part of science, along with observing nature, forming hypotheses, and testing predictions. Scientists utilize taxonomy to organize their observations of nature, to enable clearer thinking, and to communicate concepts that they piece together into hypotheses. Therefore, definitions such as for planet are not determined arbitrarily nor to serve cultural purposes nor to fit culture’s preconceptions. The evolution of asteroid and planet taxonomy can be a pedagogical example of these concepts. We live in a time when the discovery of planetary bodies within our own solar system and around other stars is greatly expanding and revealing properties and solar system architectures not previously known or predicted. This will necessarily continue to drive the evolution of how we group objects into categories of planets and other taxons, motivated by scientific utility.

 
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain