• andros_rex@lemmy.world
    181·
    3 days ago

    The meme does get at an important point though -

    Our classifications of things have no impact on the things themselves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. We create the category “planet” as a useful tool for referring to certain categories of astronomical objects. These objects would exist whether we had words for them are not.

    There are patterns in what the word “planet” describes that would also be shared, whether all of those things were called “planets” are not, but the words themselves are just useful shorthands depending on the context that we use them in. The map is not the territory; the referent is not the reference.

    (This is also about sex/gender.)

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          iOS! Spotlight search on an iPhone.

          Tapping the short definition at the top produced the lengthier one. But nothing compares to the Oxford English Dictionary itself online! (Yay a local public library subscription)

          Anyway pretty UI eh?

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 day ago

            not a fan of the rest of the UI tbh but the typography on the dictionary is beautiful.

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 days ago
        1. Compare knowing and saying:

        how many feet high Mont Blanc is

        how the word “game” is used

        how a clarinet sounds.

        If you are surprised that one can know something and not be able to say it, you are perhaps thinking of a case like the first. Certainly not of one like the third.

        1. Consider this example. If one says “Moses did not exist”, this may mean various things. It may mean: the Israelites did not have a single leader when they withdrew from Egypt–Or: their leader was not called Moses -Or: there cannot have been anyone who accomplished all that the Bible relates of Moses-Or: etc. etc. We may say, following Russell: the name “Moses”-can be defined by means of various descriptions. For example, as “the man who led the Israelites through the wilderness” , "the man who lived at that time and place and was then called 'Moses " “the man who as a child was taken out of the Nile by Pharaoh’s daughter” and so on. And according as we assume one definition or another the proposition "Moses did not exist? acquires a different sense, and so does every other proposition about Moses. -And if we are told “N did not exist”, we do ask: “What do you mean? Do you want to say . . . … Or . . . … etc.?” But when I make a statement about Moses, am I always ready to substitute some one of these descriptions for “Moses”? I shall perhaps say: By “Moses” I understand the man who did what the Bible relates of Moses, or at any rate a good deal of it. But how much? Have I decided how much must be proved false for me to give up my proposition as false? Has the name “Moses” got a fixed and unequivocal use for me in all possible cases? Is it not the case that I have, so to speak, a whole series of props in readiness, and am ready to lean on one if another should be taken from under me and vice versa?

        Consider another case. When I say “N is dead”, then something like the following may hold for the meaning of the name “N”: I believe that a human being has lived, whom I (1) have seen in such-and-such places, who (2) looked like this (pictures), (3) has done such-and-such things, and (4) bore the name “N” in social life. Asked what I understand by “N”, I should enumerate all or some of these points, and different ones on different occasions. So my definition of “N” would perhaps be “the man of whom all this is true”. But if some point now proves false?-Shall I be prepared to declare the proposition “N is dead” false- even if it is only something which strikes me as incidental that has turned out false? But where are the bounds of the incidental?-If I had given a definition of the name in such a case, I should now be ready to alter it.

        And this can be expressed like this: I use the name “N” without a fixed meaning. But that detracts as little from its usefulness, as it detracts from that of a table that it stands on four legs instead of three and so sometimes wobbles.)

        Should it be said that I am using a word whose meaning I don’t know, and so am talking nonsense? Say what you choose, so long as it does not prevent you from seeing the facts. (And when you see them there is a good deal that you will not say.)

        Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

  • egrets@lemmy.world
    582·
    3 days ago

    The problem with recognizing Pluto is that Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, Ceres, Orcus, and perhaps also Salacia also should probably be included, and that makes for a nightmare of a mnemonic. As we all know, classification is decided on mnemonic plausibility.

    • CuriousRefugee@discuss.tchncs.de
      27·
      3 days ago

      My Very Educated Mother’s Cousin Just Served Us Nine Outstanding Pizzas - (Somehow,) Her Quiche Might Get Officially Surpassed

      Now, you only have to remember that Makemake and Orcus are in the Kuiper belt (past Neptune’s orbit), and that maybe that Salacia is optional, and you can puzzle out the two repeated letters.

      I spent too long on this.

      • lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.worldEnglish
        35·
        3 days ago

        What’s the problem with having many many planets in our solar system? You don’t have to remember them all.

        We also have many many stars in our galaxy. We don’t have to know their names for them to still be stars.

        • Klear@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          3 days ago

          You don’t ever see people calling for Ceres to be proclaimed planet, all they care about is Pluto.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            3 days ago

            @lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.world is it better for space/societal advancement if we have a nice neat small finite number of planets in our solar system, if even politicians can remember how many there are so Earth feels a little less like a statistic?

            Kinda stretching here, IDK

          • lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.worldEnglish
            37·
            3 days ago

            I think Pluto having been widely regarded as a planet before and having a visible heart shape on it’s surface is an easier sell. I say they are both planets.

            What’s the problem with having many many planets in our solar system?

            You also can’t find a good problem with this, can you?

    • Guidy@lemmy.world
      116·
      3 days ago

      It’s only a problem when you reach a certain level of astronomical knowledge. 99% of us don’t and won’t give a shit and think the people who decided Pluto’s no longer a planet are simply assholes.

      All adults know what a “grandfather clause” is and are capable of applying that to Pluto.

      Pluto is and will always be Hot Shit.

        • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          3 days ago

          Technically, you don’t know Fonzie’s temperature. And before you go and say “human temperature,” the Fonz is a fictional character, so all bets are off.

      • lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.world
        24·
        3 days ago

        the people who decided Pluto’s no longer a planet

        Yes. Fuck Mike Brown. I don’t know why many people still let him dictate what to think of as a planet. The concept of “planet” is entirely man-made and doesn’t follow any god given or universal criteria. While some astronomers argue that our moon is a planet too, the current criteria would even de-classify earth as a planet, should it get knocked out of our solar system.

        I see Pluto as a Planet, and have yet to see a good argument against it.

    • lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.worldEnglish
      33·
      3 days ago

      Pluto and the others are planets even without including them all in the mnemonic. The mnemonic is for the first 9 planets, just like you only remember the first few digits of pi.

          • turmacar@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 days ago

            The moons of Jupiter and Saturn were called satellite planets from their discovery until sometime in the 20th century.

            The first several asteroids were called planets, until enough were discovered that the term ‘asteroid’ was invented and they were renamed.

            The first Kuiper belt objects were called planets, until enough were discovered that it turns out Pluto is mostly just a particularly reflective example.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      12·
      3 days ago

      The problem with recognizing Pluto is that Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, Ceres, Orcus, and perhaps also Salacia also should probably be included

      If one uses diameter as the cutoff, then Pluto is larger than all of those.

      • zqps@sh.itjust.works
        7·
        3 days ago

        Ok so we’re adding new arbitrary qualifications to hold onto the simplified image of the solar system that we learned growing up.

      • Enkrod@feddit.org
        71·
        3 days ago

        Nah, the cutoff is “is it mostly spherical due to its own gravity?” and “has it cleared its orbit from other bodies?”

        Pluto is massive enough to be spherical but did not clear its orbit from other bodies. Now its the head of its own family, the dwarf-planets.

      • egrets@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 days ago

        Indeed, but Eris is only marginally smaller and a fair bit more massive, and the latter is generally more important in categorization.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      77·
      3 days ago

      Yet Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter…as though they are similar in any way. “Planet” is one of the few times science has decided to change something for the sole purpose of keeping the Earth important in its classification. I suppose we could not have 15 or 20 or 40 planets because that would be confusing…yet we have almost 1000 moons. It is ONLY because it is the Earth’s classification…no other reason. It doesn’t make anything easier or less confusing.

      They could have easily made mercury, pluto, and a dozen others dwarf planets, Venus Earth and Mars terrestrial planets and the others gas planets… but that would demote Earth.

      Weird left over geocentrism remaining in science like it’s the 1300s.

      • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        2·
        2 days ago

        Er… Are you saying that scientists won’t classify Earth as a Terrestrial Planet? Because they do.. The next 4 are Jovian Planets, while others including Asteroids are called Minor Planets.

        If you check the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet you’ll notice some scientists consider Earth’s Moon, plus Io and Europa terrestrial planets as well.

        I don’t see how it would be a demotion. Pluto is a planet, but not one of the terrestrial or Jovian Planets, but instead a minor planet, a dwarf planet. The people who insist on the 9 or 8 planets is less scientists and more about what we teach as the main planets in the solar system to like kids and such.

        I’m a bit confused on your idea of scientists. They love being more specific about definitions, as do many other technical fields. Ask medicals scientists about Cancer or heart disease and they’ll explain they’re very broad terms that have many subcategories and differences, which is why there isn’t 1 easy cure. Similarly, “the common cold” is just a description of symptoms carried out by a number of different viruses from different families that our bodies just tend to react to in the same way, which is why a cure for the common cold is a ridiculous thing to hope for.

        These definitions aren’t usually for scientists, but instead generalizations the public settle on because remembering everything would be too much for people who aren’t interested or involved.

        • nexguy@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 days ago

          I understand and completely agree wiyh your point except there are no sub categories of planets. This move was specially made (by a super minority of voters at a last minute end of the conference vote) to keep Earth’s classification as a planet more important. First of all, and frankly insane, Pluto is not under the classifocation of a planet. It is a dwarf planet that, contrary to logic, is NOT a sub category of a planet. If you look at the Euler diagram on the wiki page for dwarf planets you can see they specifically made sure planets were a stand alone category. Sub categories like you mentioned make perfect sense but would slightly diminish Earth’s “special” classification.

          I would love for all of the bodies to be under a large hierarchical classification as you suggested but oddly they are not. It’s disjointed and I think done in a way specifically to spite others in a bit of a power fit.

          • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            1·
            2 days ago

            Ahh, more a complaint about the International Astronomical Union (IAU), not science in general. No objections to that complaint. Your comment just kinda read as if it were all science and/or astrophysicists.

    • Dettweiler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      7·
      3 days ago

      If we include Pluto, we will have 14 planets in our solar system, and I’m okay with that.
      In order of proximity to the sun, we have Ceres, Pluto, Huema, MakeMake, and Eris.

      Granted, there’s currently only 5 officially recognized, and the IAU says there may be more than 100 objects in our solar system that qualify that are yet to be discovered.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    74·
    3 days ago

    The good thing about Pluto is it’s a planet whether you believe in it or not.