Saying Pluto is a planet or not has nothing to do with science. Was there a blind experiment somewhere? I'm not saying we can't have that discussion, but I AM saying it's outside the realm of science. This is an issue of defining words, not cause-and-effect
-
-
Replying to @_molten_steel_
it's more interestingly a development in the history of science. when Pluto was discovered (1930 officially, but predictions of its existence from 1906 onwards) there simply wasn't much awareness of the spectrum of orbiting bodies larger than asteroids and smaller than planets.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @_molten_steel_
reclassifying it as "eccentric dwarf planetoid" or whatever isn't just a shift in language but a shift in the ability to think about what kinds of things are in space. the fact that people jabber about it is mostly due to shitty media coverage and childhood nostalgia.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
I actually don't have an issue with the jabbering. Just the fact that they use 'science' to lend authority to claims that have nothing to do with science. It's never just, "We classify things like this because it's more useful to us"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
scientism is a bad look
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.