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?