Planets predate modern astronomy. You have to negotiate with the public if you want to change what “planet” means. To most people, in most contexts, it means 8 or 9 specific things that they have specific ideas about, not a theoretical category of infinite objects.
> Planets predate modern astronomy.
If we're segmenting off "modern astronomy" then Pluto wasn't even discovered yet.
And we discovered Ceres long before Pluto. It would be pretty rude to keep excluding Ceres just because we knew about the asteroid belt before we knew about the Kuiper belt.
It’s not about being rude to Pluto so much as about being rude to me.
I’m not a member of the IAU. I don’t adhere to their linguistic prescriptivism, and nobody should expect that I will. Some of their own members do not — the article here explains.
Are you a member of the IAU?
I didn't say anything about rudeness to Pluto, I was talking about Ceres. I like Ceres. I think it deserves some recognition for being known before even Neptune.
By all means, call it what you like and honor it however you like.
I’m not the IAU, and I have no interest whatsoever in emboldening thousands of people to smugly harass you or anybody else about it.
Few things sound more like more science than "planets". Telling people "Well actually 'planet' isn't a scientific term, it's a historical / cultural term" will also significantly reduce their trust and interest in science.
Hey, don’t blame me, blame the IAU for opening that can of worms. I’m just happy calling Pluto a “planet” and would rather the IAU had left me in peace — they’re the ones who want to argue with me about what words I’m supposed to say and when I’m supposed to say them.
I’d encourage you to think about the impact of science fiction on interest in science. Culture is an extremely powerful force. I don’t think your concern would bear out.
There was no do nothing option, the IAU didn't open the can of words. 10 new objects that would be called planets under the old definition were discovered. "Doing nothing" would have led to far more significant changes.
Even if they had to do something, they didn’t need to do what they ended up going for — it was a pretty bad option from a scientific standpoint and a needlessly controversial one.
As the article here explains, the 2006 IAU definition doesn’t really make sense or function as a useful model for what a planet is.