I hate to disrupt my silence for something frivolous, but this was too good to keep to myself.
From Wired News: State Might Make Pluto a Planet
New Mexico state representative Joni Marie Gutierrez has introduced a bill — to be voted on next Tuesday — that says, “as Pluto passes overhead through New Mexico’s excellent night skies, it be declared a planet.”
The bill is expected to pass easily, as Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto in 1930, is from Gutierrez’s district.
The Pluto debate itself highlighted for me the arbitrary nature of many definitions — as well as the fact that “objective” science is not operating so completely outside the framework of humanity as to be infallible in its classifications. Beyond that, well, I have to admit that I didn’t get all too worked up about Pluto’s demotion.
This possible action by New Mexico is far more interesting to me. I don’t really care how the state of New Mexico classifies Pluto, although it might prove for some awkwardness if New Mexican students are learning a different solar system than everyone else in the world. But I am disturbed by the idea of a government — at any level — passing legislation designed to supersede a scientific definition.
But then again, humanity’s justified some pretty hideous things in the name of science. Maybe highlighting its fallibility isn’t such a ridiculous thing to do.
This case appears to offer an illustration of the impact that developments in science, even one as small as the reclassification of Pluto, can have on culture. Believe it or not, this isn’t the first (or even second) time I’ve had a discussion about the reclassification since the IAU decision. It’s interesting to me because, although nothing physically has changed — Pluto is still the same rock orbiting the sun as before — some people seem to have an emotional response to the reclassification.
Maybe the New Mexico lawmaker offered the bill as some kind of publicity stunt, but I believe that at least part of her and others genuinely consider the reclassification “a personal affront.” I think you’re right that “science is not operating so completely outside the framework of humanity as to be infallible in its classifications.” In fact, I think the legislation provides evidence that science does not and cannot operate outside the framework of culture.
“Pluto is still the same rock orbiting the sun as before.” Yes. And, until we start having to legislate which kinds of celestial bodies can be owned or settled by corporations, countries, or individuals, I don’t think the reclassification has any “real” effect.
Beyond the reality, of course, of the emotional responses and the time spent by the New Mexico legislature.
“I am disturbed by the idea of a government — at any level — passing legislation designed to supersede a scientific definition”
And even more disturbing idea is the government defining science. I know, because of my job, that in the past the government has tried to legislate to re-define some disciplines that have traditionally been classified as social sciences. In my case sociology, although i am not even close to being a “sociologist”. I do think that there should be constant debate on what is science and what is not, and i think that not every discipline ending with “ology” should be considered a science. But when the government decides that something is not a science, that pretty much means that NSF and other government agencies will stop providing money for any research that falls under this category.
Interestingly enough, about a month ago i was assigned to go through some of our publications to find out how many articles within them had been researched/publish with money from NSF, and it was quite a significant part.
But just think about what would happened to research on fields such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and all the other social sciences… i know they are not a part of the so called hard-sciences, but still their contributions “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…” (which are the goals of NSF according to their website) have not been insignificant.
It’s true that the federal government can impede research in certain areas based on funding policies, and, in some cases, the bases of those policies are questionable. The current policy on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research probably is the clearest example of this. In response to this and other Bush administration policies, a group of scientists last year formed Scientists and Engineers for America, which calls on scientists and engineers “to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interest ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence, and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.” I generally agree with the goals of this group, but I also think that blindly following science, although an improvement over blindly following ideology, is not the whole answer.
I remember Pluto. I care about science and Hubble
but I care about Pluto more. Much more. In my
heart of hearts, Cold faraway Pluto will
always be No. 9! Kong. Kong. Kong!