Science vs. Imagination: Why Pluto is Now Not a Planet

By William J. Clancey


We sometimes find lively debates in the press—and the public—about scientific matters.  A scientific commission, the International Astronomical Union, recategorized Pluto as a "dwarf planet" during the summer of 2006.  Here was a matter everyone could have an opinion about!  Or so it seemed...   For example, a member of the Editorial Board of the usually erudite Wall Street Journal, wrote:

==============

Editorial Board: Wittgenstein, Aristotle and Pluto

By Brian M. Carney, The Wall Street Journal
Eastern edition; Sep 2, 2006, A.8

Early in the "Ethics," Aristotle cautions his readers that every field of study should aim for a degree of precision appropriate to the subject matter. "The same exactness must not be expected in all departments of philosophy alike," Aristotle wrote, "any more than in all the products of the arts and crafts." The officious astronomers who redefined planethood to exclude Pluto are guilty of what scholars of Aristotle like to call a "category mistake." They are striving for a degree of precision inappropriate to their subject matter.

==============

Apparently Mr. Carney has no scientific training—"nothing turns on whether Pluto is a dwarf or not" could only be stated by someone who does not understand the nature of physics and astronomy, and so imagines that the categories used by planetary scientists are arbitrary.  (His tossing about philosophy is equally illiterate—by "category mistake" Gilbert Ryle was referring specifically to treating an abstraction as if it were a concrete thing, viz, "I have seen the classrooms, the library, and the dormitory, but where is the university?")

At issue is the origin of Pluto—was it formed in the same way as the Earth or in the same way as the 800 or so objects in the Kuiper Belt?   And how were those bodies formed?   The study of these objects is quite recent.

From the Wikipedia—

Over 800 Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) (a subset of trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs)) have been discovered in the belt, almost all of them since 1992. This was a result of advances in computer hardware and software...

Among the largest are Pluto and Charon, but since the year 2000 other large objects that approached and even exceeded their size were identified.

The definition of "planet" since Copernicus is based on an orbital pattern that Pluto has always been known to violate.  Furthermore, it posed a huge problem—how could there be four rocky planets—Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars—followed by four gas giants—Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune—and then this one puny rock?  Today we know that there are hundreds of rock-ice bodies like Pluto beyond Neptune.  We assume they are leftovers that didn't consolidate when the Sun and the planets were formed.  The better understanding of the Kuiper Belt—and tentative discovery of such a belt around two other stars—has in large part prompted the need to reclassify Pluto.

Here's the current definition of Pluto—

Pluto is the second-largest known dwarf planet in the solar system. It orbits between 29 and 49 AU from the Sun, and was the first Kuiper Belt Object to be discovered. Approximately one-fifth the mass of the Earth's Moon, Pluto is primarily composed of rock and water ice. It has an eccentric orbit that is highly inclined with respect to the planets and takes it closer to the Sun than Neptune during a portion of its orbit.

In fact, Pluto is smaller than seven moons of the planets.  Also, many people raising opinions about Pluto apparently don't know that Ceres was viewed as a planet for many decades (starting in 1801) until we understood it was part of what came to be known as the Asteroid Belt.  Ceres contains 1/3rd of the mass of the asteroid belt, so it is quite huge in comparison to the rest.  Indeed, under the new designation, Ceres is now called a "dwarf planet," just like Pluto, not an asteroid.

The classification of Ceres has changed more than once. At the time of its discovery it was considered a planet, but upon the realization that it represented the first of a class of many similar bodies, it was reclassified as an asteroid for over 150 years. As the first such body to be discovered, its name was prefixed by the number 1, under the modern system of asteroid numbering. After the discovery of the trans-Neptunian object Eris, the International Astronomical Union put forward a proposal to once again define Ceres as a planet, along with Eris and Pluto's moon Charon.  This draft definition was not accepted, and in its place an alternate definition of "planet" came into effect as of August 24, 2006. Under this definition, Ceres is a 'dwarf planet', and is no longer classified as an asteroid.

As to the equally bizarre remark—"Until last month, most of us thought that Pluto was a planet.  Where was the harm in that?"—consider that until the 19th century scientists did not have a name for rocks that fell from the sky—the very idea of meteorites was folklore, not science.   

From http://www.unmuseum.org/rocksky.htm—

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle thought that rocks could not fall from the sky because the heavens were perfect and could not possibly have loose pieces floating around to fall to Earth. When a meteorite fell at Thrace near Aegospotami, Aristotle was forced to take the position that strong winds had lifted an Earth rock into the sky, then dropped it.  

Even after scientists accepted the idea that rocks could fall out of the sky, it still took them a while to come to believe that really big rocks could fall from the sky. Rocks large enough to make craters like those seen on the moon. This was partly because the largest meteor impact witnessed was only about a ton in weight and had made a hole just slightly larger than itself. Most scientists in the beginning of the 20th century thought that very large meteors would burn up in Earth's atmosphere before they hit the ground.

Barringer's study of Meteor Crater in Arizona in the 1870s finally turned the corner.  However, the origin of the crater wasn't established until 50 years ago—

Controversy over the origin of the crater continued until 1957 when Eugene Shoemaker, a geology graduate student, reexamined the site and produced additional evidence showing that the crater was the result of an iron meteoroid about 80 feet in diameter and weighing 63,000 tons, hitting the plain approximately 50,000 years ago. The impact released energy equivalent to a 1.7-megaton bomb.

What was the harm in that ignorance?  Well, today the US government requires NASA to search for, catalog, and predict the Near Earth Asteroids that could crash into earth and destroy all civilization. 

From the Wikipedia—

The general acceptance of the Alvarez hypothesis, explaining the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event as the result of a large asteroid or comet impact event, has raised the awareness of the possibility of future Earth impacts with asteroids that cross the Earth's orbit.

Roughly 1000 near-Earth asteroids are known, ranging in size up to ~32 kilometres (1036 Ganymed). Tens of thousands probably exist, with estimates placing the number of NEAs larger than one kilometre in diameter at up to 2,000.

On March 23, 1989 the 300 metre (1,000-foot) diameter Apollo asteroid 4581 Asclepius (1989 FC) missed the Earth by 700,000 kilometres (400,000 miles) passing through the exact position where the Earth was only 6 hours before. If the asteroid had impacted it would have created the largest explosion in recorded history.

On March 18, 2004, LINEAR announced a 30 metre asteroid 2004 FH which would pass the Earth that day at only 42,600 km (26,500 miles), about one-tenth the distance to the moon, and the closest miss ever noticed. They estimated that similar sized asteroids come as close about every two years.

Science advances by categorizing phenomena and things, and identifying the processes that cause them.  No understanding is possible without a meaningful categorization, a sorting, first often by appearances, and then by causes.  That's why biology started by taxonomizing plants and animals.  And why today there are dozens of names for types of genes.  And why we are busy looking for and categorizing Near-Earth Asteroids.

To say nothing hinges on whether Pluto is called a planet or not is like saying nothing hinges on the difference between science and imagination.

It's remarkable and disturbing that this article was written by a member of the WSJ Editorial Board.  Or perhaps to borrow Mr. Carney's language, I should say "an officious editor."

=========================

Copyright © 2006 William J. Clancey. All Rights Reserved.


Back to William J. Clancey Home Page