Picking any arbitrary generic definition and applying it universally is less emotional, because there is no emotional reasoning necessary to explain why any object is or isn't a planet.
Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood?
People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t want to say outright. It’s a sort of appeal to authority rather than a scientific claim. That’s dishonest, and people push back when authorities are dishonest with them.
We don’t make the rules, this is just what a planet is now. Wait, did you say we do make the rules? No, of course we didn’t vote on what our scientific result should be… that would be unscientific. We ARE science.
This makes no sense to me, can you explain WHY a universal definition is not needed?
> Scientists just ignore the rule about neighborhoods at times for convenience — how else would you claim to have found an “exoplanet” if you cannot also rule out “exo-dwarf-planets” in its neighborhood?
I might be missing a more specific critique, but IIUC, this question only makes sense to me if you presuppose that classifications must never be updated. Because otherwise, the solution is that you do the best you can with the data you have, and accept that better data might come along later and prove you missed something? The same way e.g. classifications in biology are frequently updated?
> People can tell when a rule was added for a specific reason that the authors don’t want to say outright. It’s a sort of appeal to authority rather than a scientific claim. That’s dishonest, and people push back when authorities are dishonest with them.
See, this is where you've totally lost me. I can't tell what people apparently can tell. So what is that specific reason? Do you have to wrap your allegations in so many indirect and allusions? This kind of conspiratorial-cryptic writing genuinely reminds me of flat earthers and qanon followers.
> We don’t make the rules, this is just what a planet is now. Wait, did you say we do make the rules? No, of course we didn’t vote on what our scientific result should be… that would be unscientific. We ARE science.
Did such a vote happen when Pluto got added? I genuinely don't know, but otherwise this objection makes no sense to me.
It was a fool’s errand or an act of deception to try to coerce “planet” to be a specialized word. The cracks are evident. The 2006 IAU definition doesn’t work.
Specialized words are great. They are important in science. “Planet” is not a specialized word and it has not been a specialized word for hundreds of years. Scientists did not need to somehow coerce “planet” into a specialized term to continue doing science—and if they did, there was still no reason to bother non-specialists about it, since science is its own domain where terms can be used in specialized ways.
Yes, update classifications whenever it’s useful to you. No, don’t expect other people to regard your classification system as the final word. You yourself are planning to change it anyway when it stops being useful to you, and other people have a right to categorize things differently for their own purposes — your system will be neither definitive nor universal, so it shows a lack of self-awareness to say that it is.
You mention that I make cryptic allusions. “See, this is where you've totally lost me. … So what is that specific reason? Do you have to wrap your allegations in so many indirect and allusions?” To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about.
> To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld.
Nope. Just like it is okay for scientists in the field of biology to change the definition of "species" as used in their field, it is okay for the same to happen for the word "planet", even if the general public then argues everyone should use the updated definition in everyday language. That's how language happens and evolves, and that's how we got these words! If this were not the case, Pluto would never have been added as a planet. You were okay with every change until that point - yeah, of course you agree with the changes up to what you were taught, even if there's no argument for what makes them different!
You have to understand: there's no conspiracy behind the IAU that's making people argue against you! It's literally just individual people disagreeing with your disagreement.
---
Regarding your edit:
> To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about.
> > To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld.
In the article, I see literally no reason given by Kornfeld to assume anything but an honest disagreement. Okay, great, they think the definition should fulfill a requirement that the majority apparently doesn't see as necessary. How do they get from this to people inventing a reason to specifically exclude Pluto? There's no reason given to assume bad faith?
Nobody is saying biologists can’t use that word the way they see fit. It would however be ridiculous for them to ask me to stop referring to species counterpoint.
> as used in their field
Now you’re talking sense. I don’t care what they call Pluto at IAU meetings. You shouldn’t care what I call Pluto in my own home.
Now consider: the public still slowly but surely follows along with changes to the classification of species, so when e.g. a species is divided into two or more species, the general population that often encounters them will most likely refer to them separately too given enough time, and the same in the other direction.
It's a simple concept: language changes, and the public likes to follow along with "mainstream" scientific use, even if often lagging behind.
I have been defending the right for myself and for others to continue using their own language, without harassment from others in the names of scientific bodies. There was a time when linguists would prescribe that words like “y’all” are incorrect to use, and people would be shamed and discriminated against for doing so. Armchair scientists are behind the linguists on this one. We have lost cultural heritage and seen beautiful dialects gradually shrink or disappear due to prescriptive linguistics, and we now understand the harms, and it’s time that it ended.
Yes, people are free to use words in the ways that make sense and come naturally to them. No, it is not appropriate for people to treat others with disrespect for doing so. Harassment is harassment, bullying people into changing how they speak is bullying. This is not a philosophical point, it’s about being a decent person.
A desire that certain people refrain from harassment is not a claim that a conspiracy exists.
A lack of originality and self-awareness is not in itself a sign that someone is conspiring with other people who lack originality and self-awareness.