The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet by Neil deGrasse Tyson Page A
Authors: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ads: Link
magazine, replied immediately:
Such romanticism has no place in science, a system which must never cease trying to determine the objective truth, a truth free from human prejudice and emotion. Neither does nationalism.
Want to piss off the astronomers? 30 Call them astrologers. Space scientist Wendell Mendell, of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, did just that:
I confess I am disappointed in the learned community that joins with astrologers in holding onto an outdated classification scheme.
I was particularly charmed by the attempt of some to make peace among the combatants. Dale Cruikshank, president of the IAU’s commission for the physical study of the planets and satellites, took both sides of the argument:
My personal view is that Pluto should probably have dual citizenship, in that its planetary status ought to be maintained partly for historical reasons and partly for its physical characteristics. But it seems clear that it is also “object one” in what we now recognize as a large class of Kuiper Belt objects.
David Levy, with perennial concern for the relationship between scientists and the public, commented:
On the whole, I do not agree with the dual status because it complicates matters too much in the public perception.
Levy’s comment here is entirely consistent with his concern-for-the-public testimony at the museum’s Pluto panel. A day earlier, Levy had posted a claim that left you wondering whether he was a personal friend of Pluto:
I believe that until we land on Pluto and find incontrovertible evidence that that world does not wish to be called a planet, that we should leave things as they are.
My professional research interests relate primarily to stars and galaxies. Knowing this, geologist Jeff Moore, from NASA Ames, chose to attack my absence of professional association with the solar system:
First of all, it’s rather amazing that Tyson, an astrophysicist, would even venture into such waters. I feel, as a planetary geologist, equally qualified to demote the Magellanic Clouds 31 to glorified star clusters as opposed to small galaxies. So in that spirit, I think he’s full of baloney.
I have always enjoyed seeing the word baloney used in a sentence.
Returning to the dialogue, Joshua Kitchener could not resist a historical analogy to the proceedings:
It’s not too hard to imagine the same type of people back in Galileo’s age, saying, “I’ve been taught that the Earth is the center of the universe since I was a child. Why change it? I like things the way they are.”
Mark Kidger, of the Institute for Astrophysics in the Canary Islands, followed with a perceptive comment about the trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) of the Kuiper belt:
Had other TNOs been discovered in 1935 and not in 1992, it is quite possible that we would not be having this debate now.
These views, and many more, were all posted to CCNet within a single 24-hour period. Benny Peiser would now solicit the open letter of rebuttal from me, with a polite appeal that concealed much of the emotion that the raging conversation had engendered:
I regret that you have received a considerable amount of flak and criticism for your pioneering decision, and would like to congratulate you for your courage. As a moderator of CCNet, I have tried to keep this whole debate in the domain of fact and evidence, rejecting right from the start any attempts to intimidate those who suggested changes to the status of Pluto.
Please let me know whether you would be happy to write a little essay-type comment for CCNet and its many readers. I would very much [like] to hear from you.
On February 14, 2001 , Benny Peiser decided to post the entire New York Times article that contained the conversation between me and Mark Sykes, chair of the American Astronomical Society’s Division for Planetary Sciences. A week earlier, in a kind of preamble to that posting, Mark Sykes may have been concerned about whether the New York Times article
Such romanticism has no place in science, a system which must never cease trying to determine the objective truth, a truth free from human prejudice and emotion. Neither does nationalism.
Want to piss off the astronomers? 30 Call them astrologers. Space scientist Wendell Mendell, of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, did just that:
I confess I am disappointed in the learned community that joins with astrologers in holding onto an outdated classification scheme.
I was particularly charmed by the attempt of some to make peace among the combatants. Dale Cruikshank, president of the IAU’s commission for the physical study of the planets and satellites, took both sides of the argument:
My personal view is that Pluto should probably have dual citizenship, in that its planetary status ought to be maintained partly for historical reasons and partly for its physical characteristics. But it seems clear that it is also “object one” in what we now recognize as a large class of Kuiper Belt objects.
David Levy, with perennial concern for the relationship between scientists and the public, commented:
On the whole, I do not agree with the dual status because it complicates matters too much in the public perception.
Levy’s comment here is entirely consistent with his concern-for-the-public testimony at the museum’s Pluto panel. A day earlier, Levy had posted a claim that left you wondering whether he was a personal friend of Pluto:
I believe that until we land on Pluto and find incontrovertible evidence that that world does not wish to be called a planet, that we should leave things as they are.
My professional research interests relate primarily to stars and galaxies. Knowing this, geologist Jeff Moore, from NASA Ames, chose to attack my absence of professional association with the solar system:
First of all, it’s rather amazing that Tyson, an astrophysicist, would even venture into such waters. I feel, as a planetary geologist, equally qualified to demote the Magellanic Clouds 31 to glorified star clusters as opposed to small galaxies. So in that spirit, I think he’s full of baloney.
I have always enjoyed seeing the word baloney used in a sentence.
Returning to the dialogue, Joshua Kitchener could not resist a historical analogy to the proceedings:
It’s not too hard to imagine the same type of people back in Galileo’s age, saying, “I’ve been taught that the Earth is the center of the universe since I was a child. Why change it? I like things the way they are.”
Mark Kidger, of the Institute for Astrophysics in the Canary Islands, followed with a perceptive comment about the trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) of the Kuiper belt:
Had other TNOs been discovered in 1935 and not in 1992, it is quite possible that we would not be having this debate now.
These views, and many more, were all posted to CCNet within a single 24-hour period. Benny Peiser would now solicit the open letter of rebuttal from me, with a polite appeal that concealed much of the emotion that the raging conversation had engendered:
I regret that you have received a considerable amount of flak and criticism for your pioneering decision, and would like to congratulate you for your courage. As a moderator of CCNet, I have tried to keep this whole debate in the domain of fact and evidence, rejecting right from the start any attempts to intimidate those who suggested changes to the status of Pluto.
Please let me know whether you would be happy to write a little essay-type comment for CCNet and its many readers. I would very much [like] to hear from you.
On February 14, 2001 , Benny Peiser decided to post the entire New York Times article that contained the conversation between me and Mark Sykes, chair of the American Astronomical Society’s Division for Planetary Sciences. A week earlier, in a kind of preamble to that posting, Mark Sykes may have been concerned about whether the New York Times article
Similar Books
