Pluto makes for a great lesson about science itself. Our view of the universe we live in changes over time as we get more information about it. Children should learn to expect that and to understand that it isn't a bad thing, or a flaw with science, but a vital part of the process and when it happens things are working as intended. That means that today Pluto isn't a planet, even though for a small time it used to be considered one, because we learned more about the bodies in our solar system and it no longer made sense to call Pluto a planet. We can explain to children why it shows up in our history, and how we've moved on.
It honestly doesn't have to be a bunch of drama. The problem will pretty much go away after the current generation who grew up learning about Pluto as a planet dies off and gets replaced by a generation who always knew that there were only 8 planets in our solar system. Hopefully they'll also be better prepared to accept changes that come from better understanding.
> Our view of the universe we live in changes over time as we get more information about it.
But that’s not what happened here. The definition was changed. We didn’t learn anything new about Pluto that made us say “ah, we thought Pluto had a solid core but apparently it doesn’t, so it’s not a planet”. All the relevant facts about Pluto remained the same. The reason why it’s no longer considered a planet is because of the term ‘planet’, not because of Pluto.
We didn't learn much more about Pluto, other than it wasn't as unique as we once thought. We learned a lot more about other bodies in the Kuiper belt though. By our old classification, suddenly it looked like there could be hundreds of "planets" in our solar system. Our improved understanding of the nature of the Kuiper belt and its inhabitants caused us to reassess which types of features were useful to distinguish a planet from the vast number of smaller objects in our solar system.
I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. I’d have to point out that Pluto both is and is not a planet, depending on the context — it depends on whom you ask and the situation in which you ask.
What would you say to scientists and laypersons who consider Pluto to be a planet? How would you persuade them to your own viewpoint? Please give at least three examples and use at least three paragraphs.
Pluto is a dwarf planet. It feels like less of a "is and is not" situation, and more of an "isn't, but was once thought to be" situation.
Some people remember being told that it was a planet when they were kids and they cling to that even though we've learned that it doesn't make sense to call it a planet anymore.
Apart from that it shows up as a planet in literature, almost all of which was written before we knew better, just like how the idea of earth being at the center of the universe shows up in literature and was once a part of our culture. The geocentric model had passionate holdouts too, but we've mostly moved on from that idea since and I think we're better off for it.
For scientists and laypersons who aren't just holding onto "planet" for sentimental reasons, I'd recommend the book "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming"
A geocentric model is observably incorrect.
The word “planet” is neither true nor false. Different people use it to refer to different things.
Kind of like the word “tree.” Some things are trees and some things are not — and it really depends on whom you ask and when you ask them. Most people are able to get along and allow people to refer to whatever trees they want to, because it’s a free country and it really doesn’t make sense to try to control other people over something like that.
> Pluto makes for a great lesson about science itself.
I disagree. Quibbling about a definition like that is like quibbling about whether a certain bird is a black-crowned Night-Heron or a black-crowned Night Heron (without the second hyphen), which is a real controversy that took place.
I suppose it shows a socially constructed, human aspect of science, but it really has very little to do with actually understanding the universe. The universe doesn’t care about our arbitrary stamp-collection-style classification of objects. There’s no equation or physical theory that describes the difference in any meaningful way.
In a sense you're right, the need to classify things is really for our convenience. Those classifications can be extremely helpful though and it's for that reason that we try to come up with good systems of classification and re-evaluate what goes where as we learn more.
The universe doesn’t care about our arbitrary stamp-collection-style classification of objects, anymore than it cares about where elements sit on the periodic table, but for us humans having things classified and ordered is a big deal. It's our constant arbitrary naming and organizing and classifying that allows letters to get delivered to my house and packets to reach my network. It gives us more precise language and enables better focus on what matters. It helps build a foundation for teaching and research. It helps to catalogue all we've learned. While you'll find plenty of ego fueled petty squabbles around the naming and classifying of things, it's still a pretty big part of what science does and we'd struggle to teach or coordinate any sort of meaningful science without it.