You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« Our Lady's Law School | Main | Creation vs. Evolution » August 17, 2006Intelligent Design (by Committee)Leading astronomers are meeting in Prague this week to debate the nature of our solar system. A radical proposal drawn up by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is suggesting classifying planetary bodies called "plutons" (having characteristics similar to Pluto) and the asteroid Ceres as planets, bringing the total number of planets to 12. The draft proposal identifies the eight "classical" planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), three plutons (Pluto, Charon, and UB313, also known as "Xena"), and Ceres as planets. Supporters of the plan say the new pluton category allows for the discovery of new planets in the Kuiper Belt on the outer edge of our solar system. Critics say the proposal is unnecessarily confusing for the public, as Pluto is demoted to pluton and Ceres (an asteroid between Mars and Jupiter) is promoted to planet under the proposal. Some 2,500 astronomers will vote on the proposal next Thursday. UPDATE: The editors of Scientific American blog about the proposal. There are some good criticisms in the comments section. (hat tip to Mark Byron) Posted by David Darlington at August 17, 2006 08:54 AM Comments"The public are very clear about what they understand by 'planets'. Those are the big, dominant bodies in the Solar System that we're all familiar with, the eight - or nine if you include Pluto. Well should science be dumbing down things for the general public? The classification seems proposed seems rather well thought out for use by laymens. *The object must be in orbit around a star, but must not itself be a star New observations have shown the older models need tweaking, and in this case its the equivalent of defining the size points between pebble and boulder. Heck, when I was a student in elementary school (already a decade ago) the problems with Pluto and the then suggested Kupier belt were covered. Posted by: Foltz at August 17, 2006 12:02 PM | permalink I'm quite uncomfortable with Charon being considered a "Pluton". Why not make Ganymede a pluton, or the Moon, a Pluton in that case? (they are bigger than Charon, as are several other celestial bodies). Don't call a moon a planet. Semantics are stupid. Posted by: Chuck at August 21, 2006 10:39 AM | permalink Post a comment |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|