August 15, 2006
Is Pluto a Planet?
It seems to me that question of “Is Pluto a Planet” is not science. Yes, a single definition needs to be found and yes this definition needs to be applied to all future astronomical bodies we encounter going forward in order to know if we can call them a planet, but isn’t this is all really a question of semantics rather than, strictly speaking, science? It all seems a bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Changing what we call something does not change what it intrinsically is. Pluto will not suddenly disappear in a puff of logic if it is demoted from planet-hood. Having said that, if a definition is reached for which Pluto does not qualify, I say grandfather it in. Make Pluto the historical exception to the rule — a quirky footnote of history. Not because ‘Pluto deserves to be a Planet” but because designating Pluto as such tells an important story about the history of astronomy and how humans’ classification of the world around them evolved. Is that so wrong?
Filed by Daniel Appelquist at 21:44 under Science
I'm an American Ex-Pat living in London. I'm
a father of two and husband of one. I founded 
Besides, if Pluto was not a Planet any more, how would I remember them?
“My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas” wouldn’t make any sense…
I heard in newspapers that Pluto is going to disappear very soon. without saying the reason for that, you are talking about other things which I do not want to know at all.
Uh huh… Thanks for sharing that. I think it’s time for your electro-shock treatment now, so hurry along!
hey Dan…awesome website!! I’m really disapointed that Pluto is no longer considered a planet. I think that “they” (the scientists who debated on the subject) should not re-define the solar system. I think that since there has always been nine planets there always should be!!!