I know the Fediverse generally skews towards the scientific consensus, but I'm curious with how you feel about the International Astronomical Union (IAU) demoting Pluto to dwarf planet status back in 2006?
Interesting results. For me the only viable poll answers are the 2nd and 3rd options. Ultimately, the definition of what is or isn't a planet is kinda arbitrary, but we really can't promote only Pluto among the dwarf planets to planet status while ignoring other bodies like Eris. So I really don't think having nine planets is scientifically feasible as opposed to just eight or a lot more.
@seav See, I was an Eight Planeter for the longest time because at the end of the day it's just a name - an arbitrary classification that was never particularly scientific to begin with, which meant that there was no reason to argue with a decision made through official channels.
But in recent years, as planetary scientists have raised various arguments (starting with "Why are we letting astronomers define our field of study for us? Would you hire a medical doctor to name new subatomic particles? It's preposterous!". I'm paraphrasing, of course) and I've come to agree with them. Planets (like practically everything else in the universe) should be primarily defined by what they are, not by where.
Add comment