Pylimitics

There are a lot of ways to make decisions, from rolling dice to analyzing data. Some approaches to decision-making define entire fields of human activity. Voting is the realm of politics. Experimental evidence and independently verifiable results means science.

Then we have Pluto, which is evidently still controversial (who knew). It was “demoted” in 2006 from being called a planet to being called a “dwarf planet.” This is a bit ridiculous on the face of it. It’s a categorization, and who really cares? It’s the same sort of thing as “is a hot dog a sandwich.” Moreover, where did “dwarf planet” come from as a whole category? I gather it has existed for a while, but come on, if you’re not an astronomer, why is it important to have another category? If you are an astronomer, I would argue you get as many categories as you want; planets, big planets, red planets, hot and cold planets…go ahead.

There is one part of the whole argument that makes no sense whatsoever. Astronomy is a science. But some committee decided, in 2006, to change the category for Pluto according to a vote. That’s a process for politics. In science, you need something like a test with an objectively measurable outcome, so Astronomer Smith can test whatever about Pluto, determine the results show it’s a “Planet Starting with ‘P’,” and Astronomer Jones can apply the same test and report that yes, Pluto passes that test.

Maybe it’s time to start categorizing scientific fields. We could have “sciences that rely on measurable objective outcomes” and “sciences that conduct popularity contests and show up in the media.” Astronomers have moved their field into the latter category, and I bet they’re not going to be happy about what comes next.