Is a dwarf planet a planet?

[Bomb#20]

Nah, it's not something that warrants a lynching, be it proverbial or not. I'd say mildly irritated.

Hey, there is an upside. It saves grammar school students the agony of having to learn the names of, currently, five more planet names (in order of distance from the sun) and possibly as many as two hundred more in the future.

ETA:
Then there is the question of if Haumea and Makemake should be names for planets. For dwarf planets, those names don't seem quite as odd for some reason.

Why five more? They'd need to learn Eris. (A more appropriate planet name there never was.) A newly discovered planet every eighty years or so doesn't seem too stressful to learn, and it's quite in keeping with Uranus and Neptune. So who says Haumea and Makemake et al. would have to be labeled planets just because Eris is?

 

[skepticalbip]

Nah, it's not something that warrants a lynching, be it proverbial or not. I'd say mildly irritated.

Hey, there is an upside. It saves grammar school students the agony of having to learn the names of, currently, five more planet names (in order of distance from the sun) and possibly as many as two hundred more in the future.

ETA:
Then there is the question of if Haumea and Makemake should be names for planets. For dwarf planets, those names don't seem quite as odd for some reason.

Why five more? They'd need to learn Eris. (A more appropriate planet name there never was.) A newly discovered planet every eighty years or so doesn't seem too stressful to learn, and it's quite in keeping with Uranus and Neptune. So who says Haumea and Makemake et al. would have to be labeled planets just because Eris is?

Five more because there are five known objects that are now classified as dwarf planets; Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris. Currently, grammar school kids are only expected to learn the names and order from the sun of eight planets. As far as I am aware, the only difference between the definition of a planet and a dwarf planet is that to be a planet the object must have cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit. Both are identified by being in direct orbit of a star and massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape.

 

[fast]

Why five more? They'd need to learn Eris. (A more appropriate planet name there never was.) A newly discovered planet every eighty years or so doesn't seem too stressful to learn, and it's quite in keeping with Uranus and Neptune. So who says Haumea and Makemake et al. would have to be labeled planets just because Eris is?

Five more because there are five known objects that are now classified as dwarf planets; Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris. Currently, grammar school kids are only expected to learn the names and order from the sun of eight planets. As far as I am aware, the only difference between the definition of a planet and a dwarf planet is that to be a planet the object must have cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit. Both are identified by being in direct orbit of a star and massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape.

They way you worded that leaves room for question. There’s a reason they learn eight, and it’s not because learning more may serve to be more difficult or challenging. The kids learn the names of all known planets in the solar system, and that number is eight, so while what you say is true, it’s also true the number happens to be limited by the actual number of them.

No planet is a dwarf planet, and no dwarf planet is a planet.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why five more? They'd need to learn Eris. (A more appropriate planet name there never was.) A newly discovered planet every eighty years or so doesn't seem too stressful to learn, and it's quite in keeping with Uranus and Neptune. So who says Haumea and Makemake et al. would have to be labeled planets just because Eris is?

Five more because there are five known objects that are now classified as dwarf planets; Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris. Currently, grammar school kids are only expected to learn the names and order from the sun of eight planets. As far as I am aware, the only difference between the definition of a planet and a dwarf planet is that to be a planet the object must have cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit. Both are identified by being in direct orbit of a star and massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape.

They way you worded that leaves room for question. There’s a reason they learn eight, and it’s not because learning more may serve to be more difficult or challenging. The kids learn the names of all known planets in the solar system, and that number is eight, so while what you say is true, it’s also true the number happens to be limited by the actual number of them.

You are right. The designation system wasn't made for kids but for astronomers. But the upside for the kids is that less to memorize. And again you are right that the kids only have to memorize eight planets because that is all we know that exists. But, you never know, there may be a ninth - there are indications that there may be because of some odd clustering of orbits of some trans-Neptune objects and astronomers are looking for a planet to account for that quirk. If that ninth actually exists and is found then the kids will have to memorize the nine planets.

No planet is a dwarf planet, and no dwarf planet is a planet.

Exactly... the difference is whether or not there is material in the neighborhood around its orbit that hasn't been cleared.

And no dwarf planet is an asteroid (planetoid) and no asteroid is a dwarf planet. The difference between the two is whether or not the object is massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape.

But then all these designations are just arbitrary, created by astronomers so astronomers can easily classify them. They are all just lumps of matter. If they wished, astronomers could call them all 'matter wads'.

 

[bilby]

Any benefit to schoolchildren of having eight planets to memorise instead of nine is completely eliminated by the Streisand Effect.

All the fuss over whether or not Pluto is a planet means that it's one of the most well known objects in the solar system.

 

[Bronzeage]

Any benefit to schoolchildren of having eight planets to memorise instead of nine is completely eliminated by the Streisand Effect.

All the fuss over whether or not Pluto is a planet means that it's one of the most well known objects in the solar system.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. It's not like they are going to tow Pluto away for scrap because it got reclassified, or anything like that. Pluto stays where it is, so nothing actually changes.

The only thing that bothers me about all this nonsense is what it means to Clyde Tombaugh. In the 1950s and into the 1960, it was imagined that US school children were deficient in science because the Russians got a satellite into space. How could it have been our fault? The over reaction was to try to make science interesting, in an American kind of way.

The science curriculum suddenly went from magnets and getting a hard boiled egg into a milk bottle to American space pioneers. Of coarse, since we hadn't actually been to space at this point in time, pioneers were scarce. We had to settle for Clyde Tombaugh and Robert Goddard.

Clyde was born in a corn crib in Illinois and made his first telescope out of cornstalks when he was eleven. It was straight out of the "If he can do it, you can too," playbook.

Anyway, Clyde went on to find a speck in the night sky that wasn't where it was the night before. It was an inspiring story and a generation of American school children were inspired to go on to make Star Wars movies.

 

[fast]

But then all these designations are just arbitrary, created by astronomers so astronomers can easily classify them. They are all just lumps of matter. If they wished, astronomers could call them all 'matter wads'.

Matter wads. I like that. You’ve said it before. There is often some good reason for making distinctions where we do. Still, you may be correct in applying the term “arbitrary.” Not positive on that point, but I see no qualms in accepting a statement as true merely because it wouldn’t have been(,) had history evolved differently. Had an applicable vote or decision from days of old been different, some other number of planets could have been a true answer to how many planets there are in our solar system; however, if the truth has an answer based upon a foundation laced with arbitrariness, that could only mean that the truth isn’t an absolute truth, but my view is that a true statement need not lack arbitrariness. A contingent truth is no more true or false than a necessary truth ... or an absolute truth ... or a truth that would not be if not laced with what makes it arbitrary.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I’m thinking the answer is no.

To put it another way, if you look at a dwarf planet, are you looking at a planet? There are reasons one could use to argue yes but I think in the end the arguments that will prevail will conclude no.

If I’m right and the answer is no, what does that say about the term itself?

I voted "yes" because I thought that your poll was a kind of poll, so, why then vote that a dwarf planet is not a kind of planet?

Of course, what we may call a dwarf planet today may turn out tomorrow to be an alien spaceship and therefore not a planet at all.

And of course Mathematical logic is not a kind of logic, so, ys, sometimes we better be careful.

Proof a dwarf planet is a kind of planet is here:

Planet
a. In the traditional model of solar systems, a celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves.
b. A celestial body that orbits the sun, has sufficient mass to assume nearly a round shape, clears out dust and debris from the neighbourhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite of another planet.

Pick whichever definition you prefer, and according to this definition a dwarf planet is a kind of planet, provided you don't equivocate.

Dwarf planet
A celestial body that orbits the sun, is large enough to have a nearly round shape, does not clear the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite of a planet.

So, science either defines a planet which is dwarf as not a planet or a planet which is dwarf as not a dwarf planet. Kind of dwarf.

Wrong people are a kind of people.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why five more? They'd need to learn Eris. (A more appropriate planet name there never was.) A newly discovered planet every eighty years or so doesn't seem too stressful to learn, and it's quite in keeping with Uranus and Neptune. So who says Haumea and Makemake et al. would have to be labeled planets just because Eris is?

Five more because there are five known objects that are now classified as dwarf planets; Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris. Currently, grammar school kids are only expected to learn the names and order from the sun of eight planets. As far as I am aware, the only difference between the definition of a planet and a dwarf planet is that to be a planet the object must have cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit. Both are identified by being in direct orbit of a star and massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape.

My daughter is in kindergarten and they learned that Uranus has a severe axial tilt. When I was in kindergarten I learned that light was pretty.

 

[bilby]

Why five more? They'd need to learn Eris. (A more appropriate planet name there never was.) A newly discovered planet every eighty years or so doesn't seem too stressful to learn, and it's quite in keeping with Uranus and Neptune. So who says Haumea and Makemake et al. would have to be labeled planets just because Eris is?

Five more because there are five known objects that are now classified as dwarf planets; Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris. Currently, grammar school kids are only expected to learn the names and order from the sun of eight planets. As far as I am aware, the only difference between the definition of a planet and a dwarf planet is that to be a planet the object must have cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit. Both are identified by being in direct orbit of a star and massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape.

My daughter is in kindergarten and they learned that Uranus has a severe axial tilt. When I was in kindergarten I learned that light was pretty.

It's amazing how much more advanced sex education is these days.

 

[Bomb#20]

It saves grammar school students the agony of having to learn the names of, currently, five more planet names...

Why five more? They'd need to learn Eris. (A more appropriate planet name there never was.) A newly discovered planet every eighty years or so doesn't seem too stressful to learn, and it's quite in keeping with Uranus and Neptune. So who says Haumea and Makemake et al. would have to be labeled planets just because Eris is?

Five more because there are five known objects that are now classified as dwarf planets; Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris.

If the stipulated definitions stay as they are, it's zero more. So for us to consider whether it would be five more or only one (or two -- I didn't realize you were counting Pluto as "more"), we have to be considering an alternate scenario in which the definitions are changed. Your reply therefore appears to be based on the premise that the definitions both do and do not change.

If the vote had gone the other way, Pluto and Eris would have been called "planets", and Ceres, Haumea and Makemake could perfectly reasonably have been called "dwarf planets" or "asteroids".

Currently, grammar school kids are only expected to learn the names and order from the sun of eight planets. As far as I am aware, the only difference between the definition of a planet and a dwarf planet is that to be a planet the object must have cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit. Both are identified by being in direct orbit of a star and massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape.

That convention appears to have been chosen due to an expectation that Pluto/Eris-sized bodies would be piling up rapidly, an expectation that hasn't materialized.

Exactly... the difference is whether or not there is material in the neighborhood around its orbit that hasn't been cleared.

That's the difference between the definitions, not the difference between the categories. The difference between the categories is that "planet" doesn't include Pluto and the majority wanted it that way. As Alan Stern said, if Neptune had cleared its neighborhood then Pluto wouldn't be there.

But then all these designations are just arbitrary, created by astronomers so astronomers can easily classify them. They are all just lumps of matter. If they wished, astronomers could call them all 'matter wads'.

Bingo. Biology comes with natural categories like "Tyrannosaurus rex" that scientists can discover and conform their terminology to. Most other sciences deal in continuous spectra and have to categorize by drawing arbitrary lines, and find themselves talking as though a microwave and a radio wave are different beasts. This gives other sciences species-envy.

 

[fast]

I voted "yes" because I thought that your poll was a kind of poll,

My poll is a type of poll; also, (as you thought, or perhaps still think) it is a kind of poll. I’ve heard in the past that everything is a kind of anything else. Strange, but okay; so, there have been times when although “kind of” comes to mind, i’ll substitute “kind” with “type”. Surely, not everything is a type of anything else. But notice, I neither said kind nor type in the thread title. I avoided them both in the thread title. However, admittedly, I did use “type” in the actual poll. I had hoped that wouldn’t induce confusion or improperly convey what I had (and still have) in mind. There is a stipulative definition devised by members of the scientific community that guarentee that necessarily my answer is correct. So why ask? To create the very problem that I’m seeking to hash out, which is how to articulate the underlying issue such that others can spot similar happenings. In the back of my mind, I felt someone might throw out some buzz words gleaned by grappling with this issue before. One spoke of idioms. Close to the ballpark, but that doesn’t encapsulate enough instances.

Either way, I find it puzzling that you would say “because.”

so, why then vote that a dwarf planet is not a kind of planet?

If you listed every planet, would dwarf planets be among your list? Never mind the “kind” business. If you use whatever definition you please, that introduces ambiguity.

Of course, what we may call a dwarf planet today may turn out tomorrow to be an alien spaceship and therefore not a planet at all.

There are at least a couple interpretations to that. You use the word “call” much like I used to use the word “say.” It tripped me up so many times I don’t care to remember, but I finally learned how to speak and avoid the word “say” while avoiding the unintentional suggestions I kept making.

For example, if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. You can call a tail anything you want, but calling something something doesn’t make it so. If you call a tail an eye, the dog still only has two eyes. Having the characteristics and components has to do with what it is, not the words we may instead use.

The other issue that springs to mind is about that “tomorrow” stuff. The definitions (the applicable definitions, that is) may change, but for this time and place, the truth is what it is and no other, so if the definitions evolve, any implications to truth of what I say now about what is the case now doesn’t change.

Pick whichever definition you prefer,

There is something I have learned. Explaining it is a bitch. If I say something like “behavior X is not criminal,” you will be incorrect when you deny that I am correct, yet you’ll be correct when you say “behavior X is criminal.”

Say what? Here we go:

P1: behavior x is not criminal
P2: behavior x is criminal.

Both P1 and P2 are correct

So, if I say P1, I’m right.
If you say P2, you’re right

If you deny that what I say is true, you’ve messed up. Same with me. That’s why i’ll avoid saying you’re incorrect, for what you’re saying isn’t incorrect.

If none of this makes sense, it wasn’t supposed to. It’s not supposed to unless I shine a light on it.

Rather than explain it on that example, consider the statement “that act is not possible.” You don’t get free reign to pick and choose whatever definition you want just because of word ambiguity. People try that crap all the time, and it’s not getting past me. I don’t give a damn that the act is logically possible and therefore possible in some use of the word. That only means there’s a use of the word that makes a use of that word in a sentence true. If I’m not using your particular definition and you respond with your definition, you may be correct with what you are saying, but it doesn’t have a bearing on what I’m saying just because we’re using the same words.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter one iota that some dwarf planets are planets when the real issue is whether or not some dwarf planets are planets.

If that doesn’t make sense, it wasn’t supposed to either. I told you it was a bitch. Now to pull it together. Back to the behavior x is not criminal example.

When I say a particular behavior is not criminal, i’m using the damn sense of the term I want to use (in this case, the legal sense). I don’t have to define my terms either. If I use a perfectly fitting definition and I say it and it corresponds to reality, I’m correct. When you notice that there is a use of the term that if used differently makes some utterances of the sentence false (for instance, criminal in a moral sense), although you will be correct when you say “behavior x is criminal,” you damn well will be incorrect if you instead say I’m incorrect, for I’m very much correct when I use the term such that what I say is true.

So again, if you draw on a definition that proves it true that some dwarf planets are planets, that will have no relevant bearing on the subject matter.

 

[Jokodo]

My poll is a type of poll; also, (as you thought, or perhaps still think) it is a kind of poll. I’ve heard in the past that everything is a kind of anything else. Strange, but okay; so, there have been times when although “kind of” comes to mind, i’ll substitute “kind” with “type”. Surely, not everything is a type of anything else. But notice, I neither said kind nor type in the thread title. I avoided them both in the thread title. However, admittedly, I did use “type” in the actual poll. I had hoped that wouldn’t induce confusion or improperly convey what I had (and still have) in mind. There is a stipulative definition devised by members of the scientific community that guarentee that necessarily my answer is correct. So why ask? To create the very problem that I’m seeking to hash out, which is how to articulate the underlying issue such that others can spot similar happenings. In the back of my mind, I felt someone might throw out some buzz words gleaned by grappling with this issue before. One spoke of idioms. Close to the ballpark, but that doesn’t encapsulate enough instances.

Either way, I find it puzzling that you would say “because.”


If you listed every planet, would dwarf planets be among your list? Never mind the “kind” business. If you use whatever definition you please, that introduces ambiguity.

Of course, what we may call a dwarf planet today may turn out tomorrow to be an alien spaceship and therefore not a planet at all.

There are at least a couple interpretations to that. You use the word “call” much like I used to use the word “say.” It tripped me up so many times I don’t care to remember, but I finally learned how to speak and avoid the word “say” while avoiding the unintentional suggestions I kept making.

For example, if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. You can call a tail anything you want, but calling something something doesn’t make it so. If you call a tail an eye, the dog still only has two eyes. Having the characteristics and components has to do with what it is, not the words we may instead use.

The other issue that springs to mind is about that “tomorrow” stuff. The definitions (the applicable definitions, that is) may change, but for this time and place, the truth is what it is and no other, so if the definitions evolve, any implications to truth of what I say now about what is the case now doesn’t change.

Pick whichever definition you prefer,

There is something I have learned. Explaining it is a bitch. If I say something like “behavior X is not criminal,” you will be incorrect when you deny that I am correct, yet you’ll be correct when you say “behavior X is criminal.”

Say what? Here we go:

P1: behavior x is not criminal
P2: behavior x is criminal.

Both P1 and P2 are correct

So, if I say P1, I’m right.
If you say P2, you’re right

If you deny that what I say is true, you’ve messed up. Same with me. That’s why i’ll avoid saying you’re incorrect, for what you’re saying isn’t incorrect.

If none of this makes sense, it wasn’t supposed to. It’s not supposed to unless I shine a light on it.

Rather than explain it on that example, consider the statement “that act is not possible.” You don’t get free reign to pick and choose whatever definition you want just because of word ambiguity. People try that crap all the time, and it’s not getting past me. I don’t give a damn that the act is logically possible and therefore possible in some use of the word. That only means there’s a use of the word that makes a use of that word in a sentence true. If I’m not using your particular definition and you respond with your definition, you may be correct with what you are saying, but it doesn’t have a bearing on what I’m saying just because we’re using the same words.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter one iota that some dwarf planets are planets when the real issue is whether or not some dwarf planets are planets.

If that doesn’t make sense, it wasn’t supposed to either. I told you it was a bitch. Now to pull it together. Back to the behavior x is not criminal example.

When I say a particular behavior is not criminal, i’m using the damn sense of the term I want to use (in this case, the legal sense). I don’t have to define my terms either. If I use a perfectly fitting definition and I say it and it corresponds to reality, I’m correct. When you notice that there is a use of the term that if used differently makes some utterances of the sentence false (for instance, criminal in a moral sense), although you will be correct when you say “behavior x is criminal,” you damn well will be incorrect if you instead say I’m incorrect, for I’m very much correct when I use the term such that what I say is true.

So again, if you draw on a definition that proves it true that some dwarf planets are planets, that will have no relevant bearing on the subject matter.

tl;dr: "I'm habitually equivocating, and proud of it - and so should you be"

 

[Jokodo]

Five more because there are five known objects that are now classified as dwarf planets; Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris.

If the stipulated definitions stay as they are, it's zero more. So for us to consider whether it would be five more or only one (or two -- I didn't realize you were counting Pluto as "more"), we have to be considering an alternate scenario in which the definitions are changed. Your reply therefore appears to be based on the premise that the definitions both do and do not change.

If the vote had gone the other way, Pluto and Eris would have been called "planets", and Ceres, Haumea and Makemake could perfectly reasonably have been called "dwarf planets" or "asteroids".

Currently, grammar school kids are only expected to learn the names and order from the sun of eight planets. As far as I am aware, the only difference between the definition of a planet and a dwarf planet is that to be a planet the object must have cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit. Both are identified by being in direct orbit of a star and massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape.

That convention appears to have been chosen due to an expectation that Pluto/Eris-sized bodies would be piling up rapidly, an expectation that hasn't materialized.

Exactly... the difference is whether or not there is material in the neighborhood around its orbit that hasn't been cleared.

That's the difference between the definitions, not the difference between the categories. The difference between the categories is that "planet" doesn't include Pluto and the majority wanted it that way. As Alan Stern said, if Neptune had cleared its neighborhood then Pluto wouldn't be there.

But then all these designations are just arbitrary, created by astronomers so astronomers can easily classify them. They are all just lumps of matter. If they wished, astronomers could call them all 'matter wads'.

Bingo. Biology comes with natural categories like "Tyrannosaurus rex" that scientists can discover and conform their terminology to. Most other sciences deal in continuous spectra and have to categorize by drawing arbitrary lines, and find themselves talking as though a microwave and a radio wave are different beasts. This gives other sciences species-envy.

Species envy, seriously? Does "Ring species" Ring a bell?

How about the fact that hybrid (in)fertility is more often than not a matter of degree?

As someone closer to biology than to physics, I'd still say physics envy plain old is more of a thing.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bingo. Biology comes with natural categories like "Tyrannosaurus rex" that scientists can discover and conform their terminology to. Most other sciences deal in continuous spectra and have to categorize by drawing arbitrary lines, and find themselves talking as though a microwave and a radio wave are different beasts. This gives other sciences species-envy.

Species envy, seriously? Does "Ring species" Ring a bell?

How about the fact that hybrid (in)fertility is more often than not a matter of degree?

I don't think the fact that not all species are discontinuous conflicts with the claim that biology has discoverable discontinuous natural categories. It's a subset vs. proper subset thing.

As someone closer to biology than to physics, I'd still say physics envy plain old is more of a thing.

They're both things. Different sciences have different aspects for other sciences to envy. It's entirely plausible that there's more physics envy than biology envy. Can't we all just get along?

 

[Speakpigeon]

My poll is a type of poll; also, (as you thought, or perhaps still think) it is a kind of poll. I’ve heard in the past that everything is a kind of anything else. Strange, but okay; so, there have been times when although “kind of” comes to mind, i’ll substitute “kind” with “type”. Surely, not everything is a type of anything else. But notice, I neither said kind nor type in the thread title. I avoided them both in the thread title. However, admittedly, I did use “type” in the actual poll. I had hoped that wouldn’t induce confusion or improperly convey what I had (and still have) in mind. There is a stipulative definition devised by members of the scientific community that guarentee that necessarily my answer is correct. So why ask? To create the very problem that I’m seeking to hash out, which is how to articulate the underlying issue such that others can spot similar happenings. In the back of my mind, I felt someone might throw out some buzz words gleaned by grappling with this issue before. One spoke of idioms. Close to the ballpark, but that doesn’t encapsulate enough instances.

I tend to think of a kind as an actual, ontological, difference, and of "type" as a label, something expressing an epistemological difference that may or may not be true of the real world.

Either way, I find it puzzling that you would say “because.”

The subtext was that there's no grammatical reason that a dwarf planet should not be a planet in the exact same way as there's no grammatical reason for your poll not to be a kind of poll. "Because" was short for "because of the reason that".

If you listed every planet, would dwarf planets be among your list? Never mind the “kind” business. If you use whatever definition you please, that introduces ambiguity.

Different people will do different things here depending on what they mean by "dwarf planet". If by "dwarf planet" they mean a planet which is dwarf, then they will list dwarf planets as planets, and say that dwarf planets are planets. The fact that some self-proclaimed astronomers or planetologists have decided to define "dwarf planet" as not referring to a planet at all is irrelevant. It's a logical point: conclusions follow from assumptions. Different assumptions, different conclusions.Both may be valid.

And your poll and topic didn't specify the context. So, anything goes and each man therefore speaks for himself. As for myself, I don't really care either way when it comes to the facts of the matter but I do object to extreme silliness when it is bound to affect my standing as a rational person and a proficient speaker of English.

Just look at the definitions provided in all dictionaries of "planet" and "dwarf planet"...

Planet
b. A celestial body that orbits the sun, has sufficient mass to assume nearly a round shape, clears out dust and debris from the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite of another planet.

Dwarf planet
A celestial body that orbits the sun, is large enough to have a nearly round shape, does not clear the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite of a planet.

I'm convinced these are, if not the official scientific definitions themselves, at least a fair interpretation of them.

So, these people really have to be fucked up to produce this shit. It sounds like the baffling pronouncements of an "assembly of church officials and theologians convened for regulating matters of doctrine and discipline". Exactly.

Again, it's perfectly legitimate for these people to change our well-worn vocabulary for no good reason, but they should at least produce good definitions.

Unless it be a cabal of those pissed-off resentful dimwit etymologists.

Ran out of comas here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don’t give a damn that the act is logically possible and therefore possible in some use of the word. That only means there’s a use of the word that makes a use of that word in a sentence true. If I’m not using your particular definition and you respond with your definition, you may be correct with what you are saying, but it doesn’t have a bearing on what I’m saying just because we’re using the same words.

But logical possibility is a kind of possibility:

Possible
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances

So, we just need to specify what we mean at least when it's not really obvious.

While a dwarf planet is no longer to be understood as a kind of planet. Bugger.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

When I say a particular behavior is not criminal, i’m using the damn sense of the term I want to use (in this case, the legal sense). I don’t have to define my terms either. If I use a perfectly fitting definition and I say it and it corresponds to reality, I’m correct. When you notice that there is a use of the term that if used differently makes some utterances of the sentence false (for instance, criminal in a moral sense), although you will be correct when you say “behavior x is criminal,” you damn well will be incorrect if you instead say I’m incorrect, for I’m very much correct when I use the term such that what I say is true.

So again, if you draw on a definition that proves it true that some dwarf planets are planets, that will have no relevant bearing on the subject matter.

But if X doesn't specify the definition as "legal", Y needs not specify he is using the "moral" definition, and then states that it is not true what X says according to Y's definition, and that therefore what X says is indeed not correct.

If we can use definitions without specify them, then we can also choose the definition of the standard by which a sentence is said to be correct, and thus infer and state that somebody uttering this sentence will be incorrect.

Same problem in logic where different people use different definitions of validity and prove you're wrong on that basis even though you're correct according to your own definition of validity.

Life's a bitch.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

When I say a particular behavior is not criminal, i’m using the damn sense of the term I want to use (in this case, the legal sense). I don’t have to define my terms either. If I use a perfectly fitting definition and I say it and it corresponds to reality, I’m correct. When you notice that there is a use of the term that if used differently makes some utterances of the sentence false (for instance, criminal in a moral sense), although you will be correct when you say “behavior x is criminal,” you damn well will be incorrect if you instead say I’m incorrect, for I’m very much correct when I use the term such that what I say is true.

So again, if you draw on a definition that proves it true that some dwarf planets are planets, that will have no relevant bearing on the subject matter.

As I understand what you say, depending on what definition you have in mind, you'll be correct or wrong, irrespective of whatever anyone may want to say.

I think I'll amend that a little bit. Very often, the context specifies what set of definitions apply, irrespective of any particular definition you may have in mind. Suppose there's a group of astronomers talking about dwarf planets. Then some Steve joins them and starts explaining there are nine planets orbiting the Sun. I would insist that in this case any of the astronomers present would be justified in saying to Steve that this is not correct and indeed that he is not correct. This is because the conversation began with the assumption that dwarf planets are not planets and it is incombent on the late comer to enquire what the group is talking about before chipping in. And, by implication, same thing for a forum conversation.

Also, generally speaking, "dwarf planet" is really a technical expression. Nobody in the public at large would think by himself of dwarf planets. Small planets, yes, not dwarf. At least, very unlikely. So, we can leave their jargon to astronomers without fearing that it might trip us and make us look like fools. Same for logical possibility.

Also, as I see it, "logical possibility" really means possibility in the logical sense, not something that it is logical to say that it is possible, since that kind of logicality can always be left implicit. So, the expression specifies its own domain of validity. But the expression "dwarf planet" doesn't. To the common man, a very small planet may well be seen as a dwarf planet. And so, in the context of an ordinary conversation, that would be perfectly acceptable, unless you would want to be pedantic about it.
EB

 

[fast]

But if X doesn't specify the definition as "legal", Y needs not specify he is using the "moral" definition, and then states that it is not true what X says according to Y's definition, and that therefore what X says is indeed not correct.

Let’s not forget that it’s false that “it is not true what X says.” Qualifying that with “according to Y’s definition” is peculiar since that never happened. Whether X is indeed correct or not depends on exactly what is being said.

If X says “behavior W is not criminal” he is not incorrect, yet if X says, “Mr Y, you’re wrong when you say, “behavior W is criminal,” then X is wrong. It’s only seemingly contradictory; it’s two people using a word (in this case, “criminal” differently.)

I’m more than happy to accept blame for the confusion that has come out of not defining my terms, but not even a standard dictionary that conveys the meaning as collectively used by fluent speakers will combat the fact I am at least intending to use the terms as have been stipulatively contrived by members of the scientific community.

If we ask Neil Degrasse Tyson the question, what would he say? If he says Pluto is not a planet and that it’s a dwarf planet, then that’s different than if he said it’s a planet but also a dwarf planet and so not listed among major planets. Either construct could have come to be, but because only the first construct fits, the latter does not.

PS , , , , , , ,

(My pack had a few extras)