Like in the US the decision got a lot of media coverage here. Scientists were interviewed to explain the reasons behind the decision. I saw or heard Patrick Moore, Martin Rees, Brian May and Neil DeGrasse Tyson all interviewed about the change, and all said it was because we know now more about Pluto, and science adjusts as it finds out more.

There was no public outcry over the demotion in the UK. That could be because the scientists interviewed in the UK were better at explaining it. I doubt that it is the case, and anyway the same scientists would be available for interview by US media outlets. It would seem that in the US science journalists did not do a very good job. Given Mooney is a science journalist one could understand why he would be a bit sensitive about that.

I think that partly this dissent is due to the disconnect between how the human mind categorises things (according to their similarity to prototypical examples, with fuzzy-bounded categories) and how science must categorise things (hard-edged categories constructed according to explicit lists of necessary and sufficient conditions).

The problem as I see it, is not one of scientists’ abilities to communicate, but the willingness of the public to engage and listen. I don’t think that this is a new one, and I don’t think that there was a magical time in history in which the general public was any more engaged (except perhaps during the space race of the 1960’s. Then, the threat seemed more real as the battle between the Soviets and the US to gain control of the space around Earth was real and urgent.

I think that our society has far too many distractions available to which people are more willing to turn to than to engage in learning about science. That is, except for those already interested. It’s harder to get people to listen to the issues on global warming because climatology is so complex, and we can be easily misdirected by the denialists because they use such scientific language.

Consider that we now have hundreds of cable channels filled with intellectually unchallenging content, stuff that one need only lay back and enjoy without having to put forth effort; and combine that with the fact that so many people are stressed by life itself that they are probably just needing to tune out when the thinking gets tough. When Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney toured to introduce “Framing Science” at the universities and colleges, they came to Minnesota and I listened with interest to what they had to say. The problem with the framing is that it is useful in politics because framing oversimplifies issues in order to get people to hear them in a way that engages them. Political framing also distorts the message. I think that this is in large part a major reason that so many scientists resist the concept.

Of course, the next major problem with the case that they were making at the time, and Mooney and Kirshenbaum bring it back into this book, is that they misplace the blame on atheism. I honestly don’t think that for the larger audience they are trying to appeal to regarding science and issues related to science, that atheism is a major issue at all. For most people, they don’t even care about the perception nor are they even likely aware of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne or others who make the logical connection between science and atheism. It’s an issue that’s not on their radar.

It occurs to me that the “war” between the accommodationists and the “new atheists” is over much smaller territory than they think. It may rage over a small part of the internet, but when I mention it to co-workers I get a blank stare.

What I cant get over on the Pluto fiasco is that it seems that the argument for demotion is purely organizational and not particularly scientific in the least. [...] I fail to see why a group of scientists has decided to declare war to re-organize things so arbitrarily.

What you don’t seem to see is the the moniker ‘planet’ is itself purely organizational and arbitrary. We’re talking about nomenclature, there’s no scientific test you can do to determine if Pluto is a planet. You just define the word and see what fits the definition and what doesn’t.

any argument for or against should fundamentally be about the organizational merits of one choice or another.

And they are. ‘Planet’ never had a formal definition, now it does. And the IAU decided the most useful definition was one which excluded Pluto.

Nobody ever said you weren’t allowed to call Pluto a planet anymore. The word ‘planet’ has a strict technical meaning (excluding Pluto) and a colloquial meaning (including Pluto). This is not uncommon. Nobody cares if you call Pluto a planet colloquially. I do so myself. I even refer to our Moon and other large moons as ‘planets’ in certain contexts. Which, by the way:

there is an objective differential between planets and smaller bodies, i.e. whether its big enough to have enough mass to pull itself into a stable sphere.

You seem to forget about all the large moons… There is a continuum from small objects to large ones, celestial bodies don’t come in discrete masses. No matter where you draw the ‘planet line’ it’s going to be artifical. The only thing that’s changed is someone has finally drawn that line instead of leaving it ill-defined and fuzzy.

You can call Pluto a fizzgig if you want, it doesn’t change a thing. It’s just semantics.

The core argument for demotion seems to revolve (ha!) around it just getting so sloppy if we start including all those Kuiper objects. So they draw an extraordinarily tenuous and arbitrary line designed to include what they’ve predetermined as planets and exclude those that aren’t. Arbitrary lines of classification exist for purely organizational purposes. This argument is no different than having a brawl over whether “A” and “B” should have different folders in the filing cabinet or combined into “A/B”. The distinction exists for organizational purposes, any argument for or against should fundamentally be about the organizational merits of one choice or another.

We’ve got four terrestrial planets that are completely different from four gas giants which are of course completely different from the outer Kuiper objects. But they’re all planets according to the fairly logical original definition. I fail to see why a group of scientists has decided to declare war to re-organize things so arbitrarily. It’s just … unscientific.

I am kind of glad it caused a stink though, cause I love the cartoon!

These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. I am a writer and amateur astronomer and proud to be one of these people. You can read more about why Pluto is a planet and worldwide efforts to overturn the demotion on my Pluto Blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com

Petition of astronomers who rejected the demotion: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/

Audio transcripts of the Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008: http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/