This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Space & Planetary Science

Planetary Science Trash Talking

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
June 21, 2015
Filed under ,
Planetary Science Trash Talking

A spacecraft launched in 2006 is about to try for our first good photo of Pluto, Washington Post
“NASA’s Jim Green is dismissive of the controversy: “That’s nomenclature. To me, that’s unimportant. What’s important is that this is a body well worth going to. It represents a brand new frontier.” Does Alan Stern think Pluto is still a legitimate, no- qualifiers “planet”? “Of course I do!” Stern said. “It has all the attributes of a planet. Screw the astronomers! Would you go to a podiatrist for brain surgery? They don’t know what they’re talking about!”
Keith’s note: At a time when NASA is focusing on education and inspiring the next generation of space explorers I find it rather odd that a NASA mission principal investigator, speaking in an official capacity, would be dumping on astronomers in such a public fashion. Why would anyone want to pursue a career in astronomy if a NASA mission PI says things like this in connection with their mission? Its also a bit baffling that a NASA PI, using their mission as a pulpit, pushes their own personal planetary nomenclature system – one that is at odds with what the agency and astronomical community has adopted.

For the record I think Pluto is a “planet”. It always was one. So are Ceres, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, etc. There are probably hundreds – maybe thousands – of planets in our solar system. Thousands of extrasolar planets – many far larger than Jupiter – in other solar system utterly unlike our own have been discovered that have forced many astronomers who are discovering these planets (the same ones who “don’t know what they are talking about” when it comes to planets) to reconsider what a “planet” really is and what constitutes a “solar system”. What do you call a planet-sized body that is moving through space and not orbiting a star? Recent studies suggest that there may be vast numbers of them.
One of the arguments used by partisans on both sides of the Pluto is/is not a planet issue is that not having a specific definition will cause people to be confused as to what a “planet” is. I would argue that more people are now probably confused as a result of arm waving on both sides of this discussion than might otherwise have been the case. If planetary and space scientists want their fields to be taken seriously then this goofy trash talking needs to stop – especially when done in concert with a taxpayer-funded mission.
I guess its no longer necessary to have professional discussions in the conduct of science when it comes to NASA. Snark matches are the new way to do science, so it would seem. That said, Jim Green’s comments are much more productive in this regard and should serve as the standard in such public discussions instead of counterproductive name calling.
More Pluto news

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

41 responses to “Planetary Science Trash Talking”

  1. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Well, some people say there is no such thing as bad press. That is, anything which gets you one the front page a newspaper is good. From that standpoint, Jim Green being dismissive of controversy is bad. If there is no controversy, the media will not report it, and there is a much lower potential for students to hear about the issue and get interested in the subject. On the other hand, just getting attention for the sake of getting attention isn’t all that productive either. So I’m not sure how beneficial it is for Alan Stern to fan the flames of a fairly pedantic nomenclature debate.

    And, for the record, I agree with Green (which unusual, since I’m more used to complaining about his decisions.) Pluto and its moons are an interesting place and studying them is very important. You can call is a planet, dwarf planet, a Pluto-Charon-Binary, a one of the biggest Kuiper belt objects, of, for all I care, William. The name attached does not alter the scientific interest.

  2. David_Morrison says:
    0
    0

    Some people are making the definition issue far too complex. Yes Pluto is a planet, the prototype of ciass of dwarf planets in the outer solar system. It is a dwarf planet, not a giant planet like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, and not a terrestrial planet like Earth, Venus, Mars and Mercury. This is standard nomenclature in astronomy, where we have giant and dwarf stars, giant and dwarf galaxies, etc. Can’t we all agree on this? The only problem is that a tiny minority of the International Astronomical Union passed a resolution that a dwarf planet is not a planet, contradicting the rules of logic and grammar. We should ignore them.

    • Reavenk says:
      0
      0

      But that’s a slippery slope. Next thing you know, tall and short people will be considered actual people, even though they’re modified versions (and then think of the legislative and legal burden – it would be like getting rid of apartheid or segregation all over again!). You’re either a small something, or a something, no intersection! I can see no way around it.

      And if you’re reading sarcasm from this, you might be a “smart” person, which means you’re not a person at all. And I only care about what humans think.

      His podiatrist comment is kinda weird though. If we were going to use a metaphor like that, he should have said “Would you choose a brain surgeon [over a surgeon] for brain surgery?”

      • Rich_Palermo says:
        0
        0

        Any chance it is a shot against Neil Tyson?

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Who knows? Who cares? I just want to see Pluto pictures.

        • Jeff Havens says:
          0
          0

          If so, a shot like that should be left to comedies like Big Bang Theory. “You demoted Pluto.. you are on my list.” sorta thing. (For the record, yes I find it funny). While I understand Mr. Stern’s enthusiasm getting in the way of common sense self-censoring, it doesn’t help matters. Nor does the press continuing to goad him into continuing to make statements like this because they know which buttons to push.

          Complicated issue.

        • mfwright says:
          0
          0

          NDT said don’t blame him about Pluto no longer a planet but he did say, “I drove the getaway car.”

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Do you think it is appropriate for a NASA PI to tell astronomers to go screw themselves? I guess its no longer necessary to have professional discussions in the conduct of science. Snark matches are the new way to do science, so it would seem.

      • Rich_Palermo says:
        0
        0

        Keith, you call ’em as you see ’em. That’s what keeps a lot of people coming to the site. Stern is not toeing a company line and that’s both good and refreshing. Pete Worden was deeply respected for a similar Up the Academy mindset.

        Science has historically been full of not nice people. Newton feuded with Hooke and Leibniz, the Bernoullis feuded with one another, Eddington was a master of snark. James Watson, William Shockley – not exactly cuddly. It filters all the way down past excellent experimental planetary scientists like Stern through logarithmic levels to routine science done by working stiffs.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          Just think if they had twitter and the like back in Newton’s time. I’m sure you’d have seen all kinds of similar comments.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            You are probably right. I read a lot of books about arctic and antarctic exploration and I can see where 19th/20th century explorers might have found Twitter to be useful way to taunt one’s competitors.

          • Rich_Palermo says:
            0
            0

            It would be a refreshing alternative to all the humblebragging that goes on that platform.

          • Rich_Palermo says:
            0
            0

            Says here he did more than that.
            http://www.space.com/5732-g

            “One debater, Neil deGrasse Tyson, did the boxing entrance à la Rocky. That’s how hot the matchup is between Pluto as a planet and Pluto as a plutoid. “

            Not exactly professorial.

          • Rich_Palermo says:
            0
            0

            The post re: NdT and Rocky was intended to follow mfwright’s ‘getaway car’ post below.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            Given the bandwidth of transmissions in Newton’s time, I’m sure the Newton/Leibniz kerfuffle would have crashed the system.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Sure. Probably time for the scientific types to lighten up a bit.

        And anyway our PI has a BIG chunk of his life invested in Pluto. Kinda like his homies, I imagine 🙂

      • David_Morrison says:
        0
        0

        Keith, I agree with you. Pluto is (and should be) a good news story.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      I agree. Of the many dwarf planets, some are worth investigating like Pluto and Ceres and others.

  3. lucasbachmann . says:
    0
    0

    I can understand the lashing out. The media articles don’t dedicate a paragraph constantly to the distinction between Gas giant and terrestrial planets like they have been to the dwarf planet “demotion.” Plutoids should be recognized as something different – but the “Pluto is not a planet” folks have always came across as gloating in the media over the nomenclature victory. So if someone on the other side has an opportunity to fire back in a media fight I’m not concerned.
    (Ceres and Pluto are quite different too and don’t really belong together either in any category more sophisticated than size)
    As someone in a STEM field myself I think it is safe to assume that professional astronomers would not mind in the slightest if the kids went somewhere else over the shock of terse words in a news article. It is hard enough to find a job the way it is without having the market diluted by a STEM surge.

  4. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    Kinda weird Alan would spout out something like this. He’s been such a great promoter of his New Horizons mission up to now. Still, I trust Alan more than the Washington Post any day of the week.

  5. PsiSquared says:
    0
    0

    I’m completely uninterested in the controversy. As far I’m concerned the matter was settled. I’m far more interested in the science than any fight over terminology. The name has no impact on the science.

  6. Tim Blaxland says:
    0
    0

    I’m not too fussed about the nomenclature one way or another. I take it as an opportunity to highlight to the kids that science is constantly evolving and challenging our ideas about the world around us. The contrast in language between Jim Green and Alan Stern is alarming though, and the use of offensive interjections such as Alan’s cannot be condoned.

  7. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Could they have not set the date for the name change to a time after the horizen mission had ended?

  8. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Stir the pot to get more free press and blog posts?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Pluto and its companions will be amazing enough, right? So there is no need for the PI and others to interject personal issues into what will otherwise be a thrilling few weeks of discovery.

  9. linmoo says:
    0
    0

    I think the take home message is that Alan Stern is and always will be a [deleted]. The guy has been hostile to the Astronomical community for years, including keynote speeches at their own AAS meetings.

  10. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    When I read the comments I just laughed- maybe I ‘heard’ a different tone of voice, playing the comments in my mind. He’s having a bit of fun, which I imagine is pretty much de rigueuer in this conversation amongst the pros.

  11. sunman42 says:
    0
    0

    Dr. Stern is not the first PI to conflate his ego with the scientific importance of the mission. Any perceived diminution of the object of the mission would in such thinking, threaten his self image – which is pretty silly, considering the magnitude of the achievement.

  12. John Adley says:
    0
    0

    Very unprofessional indeed, but not uncommon in the scientific community. It’s a shame.

  13. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    Any mission like this is deeply personal for anyone that works on it. They’ve been working on this well over a decade, and they deserve all the slack they need. As an engineer, I am in awe of their achievement and I can’t wait for July 14th.

  14. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    I know he’s been in administration at NASA, but have to say his comments sound like your average science professor. They are not known for exceptional social skills and they often spout equal measures of pomposity and humor. From static text on a screen, I can’t tell which category fits here. This personality type is often behind some exceptional science. I learned to smile and accept it a long time ago.

  15. wwheaton says:
    0
    0

    I guess I have to roll my eyes at Stern’s statement. Reminds me of Tweedlee-Dee & Tweedle-Dum, ‘a word means what I say it does’, it’s just ‘a question of who is master’, etc. Personally, I’d say there are eight planets: four terrestrial planets and four gas giants, which even second-graders can learn and enjoy. And probably hundreds of KBOs (of which Pluto is the lead member), and zillions of asteroids (of which Ceres is the lead), etc, etc.

    In the end the folks who make dictionaries will have the last word, based on actual usage. I do hope “KISS” finally prevails….

  16. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    I think Stern is annoyed that his project is aimed at “only” a dwarf planet. Instead of the final triumph of reaching the last of the planets, closing the history books, it is reduced to a fascinating voyage to the finest example of a large group of objects. He seems to be lashing out. It must be ungodly frustrating to be asked all the time what he thinks of the “demotion”.

  17. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    This is not the first time this issue has arisen. Ceres was announced as a planet in 1801, demoted all the way to asteroid by 1850, and then promoted to dwarf planet status. So there is no question that “planets” can and sometimes should be demoted. The least science can do is not confuse the issue. In this case it might be simplest to say that the Sun is orbited by eight planets and over a dozen dwarf planets.

  18. laurele says:
    0
    0

    Why do we need one specific definition of planet? Many subjects in science are matters of debate, with two or more different camps, based on different interpretation of the same data.
    NASA and the astronomical community have not adopted any single planet definition. It is inherently understood by professionals and amateurs alike, not to mention much of the general public, that the question of what a planet is and whether or not Pluto is one remains a matter of debate. Stern is not pushing his own planetary nomenclature system but one held by many planetary scientists–the geophysical planet definition, according to which a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star, free floating in space, or even orbiting another planet.

    If you think this back and forth needs to stop, and especially given that you do view Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, etc. as planets, you should take this up with the IAU leadership. They are the ones who opened this can of worms, then repeatedly refused to re-open it after violating their own bylaws and coming up with a highly flawed definition they then expected the whole world to blindly accept.
    Stern’s comment has to be taken in the context in which it was stated. He is not referring to “astronomers” in general. He is referring very specifically to the 424 people who voted in Prague in 2006, who misused a term he first coined by stating dwarf planets are not planets. The majority of those 424 are not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers, who study things like stars, galaxies, etc. Shouldn’t those who study planets be the ones to define the term?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      What a really dumb opening sentence – really dumb i.e. “Why do we need one specific definition of planet?”. Answer; BECAUSE THIS IS SCIENCE. Your other 6 reiterations of these same points last night – points you made time and time a gain have been deleted. All you and the pro-Pluto anti-IAU folks seem to want to do is whine and complain and clench your fists about how badly your favorite planets was treated in some meeting in Europe. Get over it. Go bother some other website. Pluto doesn’t care what any of us think.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      Scientific definitions, however, do not tend to vary. Your statement about many subjects in science being debatable doesn’t support your claim. It is true that many subjects are debatable, but definitions almost never are. For example it’s still to be determined–and is thusly debatable–that at the smallest level space is made up of a quantum foam. The definition, however, of quantum foam isn’t under debate.

      Of more importance is the fact that despite the name definition, everyone is able to continue to do science related to Pluto and other bodies, no matter how those bodies are defined. In fact, that science is in no way impacted by the name’s definition. It’s time for everyone to put on their big girl or big boy pants and move on.

  19. Michael Mahar says:
    0
    0

    Pluto is scientifically interesting and it is good that we sent a space probe there. Lucky for us the mission was planned and funded before Pluto was “demoted”. I honestly believe that it would not have been approved had Pluto been reclassified as a dwarf planet first.
    Every representative and senator probably made a poster board solar system with “tiny Pluto” as the smallest and furthest planet.
    Today, many kids don’t put Pluto on their solar system. Just like they don’t put Ceres on there. They may put a bunch of dots to show the asteroid belt but probably don’t even know the name Ceres.
    Names are important to people. I’m reminded of the hill/mountain in Wales that the towns people piled dirt on the top when a surveyor determined that it wasn’t tall enough to be an official mountain.

    Never the less, classification is one of the ways that science deals with the complexities of the universe. It allows us to encapsulate some of the essential characteristics. Current thinking in planetary science is that Pluto was not formed by the same processes that created the other eight planets and it should not be grouped with them. Later understanding and more data may bump it back into the planet camp.
    Plants and animals bounce around the family tree all the time. Sometime the debate on this can be quite acrimonious.