One of the many pro-Pluto websites
that sprang up in the immediate aftermath of the disastrous IAU planet
definition vote back in 2006 featured the image of a counter depicting Pluto’s
time taken away since the vote. That counter updated itself every day, updating
the days, months, and eventually years since the travesty.
That website has long since gone down—though various others remain—but many are still counting Pluto’s time taken away in terms of planetary recognition. For those of us doing this, today is an especially difficult anniversary, one we long hoped we would never see.
Twenty years. Two decades of a very flawed, very biased planet definition wrongly portrayed by many in the mainstream media as the final answer it most certainly never was. Two decades of sloppy reporting that completely obscured the reality of the ongoing debate over planet definition, feeding the public a one-sided view that is more politics than science.
This should never have gone on for so long. The reason it has is because of the effective stalemate in the fields of astronomy and planetary science. Given the backlash against their definition, which was adopted by just 4% of the IAU in a vote that violated its own bylaws, it is no wonder the organization has shown no interest in reopening the discussion, even in the wake of new exoplanet discoveries.
The IAU planet definition is largely ignored by most planetary scientists, many of whom prefer the geophysical definition instead. These scientists, the chief dissenters to the IAU definition, want nothing to do with the IAU and have no intention of ever approaching the organization on this issue. The result is the current stalemate, with two camps that essentially operate independently of one another, with little dialogue between them.
Significantly, the IAU planet definition applies only to our own solar system, as it requires a planet to orbit the Sun rather than a star. At the 2006 session where the vote took place, IAU leaders promised to separately address exoplanets, but over 20 years, this has not been done.
In 2006, the number of known exoplanets was around 300. Today, NASA’s Exoplanet Archive counts a total of 6,354 while the European Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia counts 8,284.
Small or dwarf exoplanets have not yet been found, but their discovery remains a matter of time.
There will be those who hail this anniversary as a triumph of science, who claim it is proof the world has “moved on” from the planet debate. Some continue to claim that opposition to the IAU definition is based solely on emotion. Both of these views are false.
Many incorrect and/or questionable theories in science have persisted for far more than 20 years. The geocentric view of the solar system dominated astronomy for millennia. Harmful medical practices such as bloodletting prevailed for centuries. Germ theory and the importance of hand washing by doctors treating patients were long ridiculed before finally become recognized practice.
The passage of time does not magically make bad science good. It does not make incorrect theories correct. And it does not make a flawed decision made by a tiny group of scientists with their own inherent bias any more true or accurate.
IAU leadership cited the discovery of Eris and other Kuiper Belt small planets as the compelling reason for enacting the group’s planet definition. Yet, nine years later, they never considered New Horizons’ findings at Pluto, which clearly revealed it to be a geologically active world, as an equally compelling reason to reopen the discussion.
Anyone can cherry pick the facts and developments they choose to support the position they want to advocate.
Meanwhile, the IAU has made no attempt to incorporate exoplanets into its definition or to address the question of rogue planets, which float freely in space without orbiting any star. Neither have they addressed the issue of brown dwarfs, which fall between the largest planets and the smallest, least massive stars.
An organization that cannot admit it may have made a mistake, that cannot incorporate new information into its scientific understanding for such a long period of time, has no business claiming itself to be an “authority” on such matters or justifying its claim that it alone has the right to adopt “official” scientific definitions.
Science is a process done by consensus based on accurate and replicable data. It is not something decreed by a self-proclaimed “authority.” That went out with Galileo over 400 years ago.
Today, people’s trust in science is at an all-time low, regarding a host of topics ranging from climate change to the effectiveness of vaccines. The actions of the IAU not just in 2006 but over the past 20 years only aggravate this situation, promoting the false view that an edict by a tiny, unaccountable group of people can determine what something is.
Dwarf planets are planets, just like dwarf stars are stars, and dwarf galaxies are galaxies. The two dwarf planets explored by spacecraft, Ceres and Pluto, have revealed to have the same complexity and processes as their terrestrial counterparts. The only difference is that they are smaller.
Eccentric orbits are not unique to Pluto or dwarf planets. Giant exoplanets have been found, some with orbits around their stars far more eccentric than Pluto’s orbit around the Sun. If these giant exoplanets aren’t planets, what are they?
Meanwhile, Pluto’s story continues to inspire people worldwide, including children born long after the IAU vote.
As noted in an article published last year in Morning Overview, “Pluto is unique in many ways. Its size and composition are comparable to other planets in the solar system, albeit smaller. It has a rocky core surrounded by a mantle of water ice, and its surface is covered in nitrogen ice, with traces of methane and carbon monoxide. This composition is not unlike that of terrestrial planets, further blurring the lines between Pluto and its larger counterparts.”
That same article acknowledged the worldwide influence by those of us around the world who have been publicly rejecting the flawed IAU definition for two decades.
“Popular culture, through media and educational systems, has maintained Pluto’s image as a planet…Grassroots movements and public interest can significantly influence scientific decision-making, as seen in past scientific debates and reclassifications. As discussions continue, the potential reclassification of Pluto as a planet remains an intriguing possibility that could reshape our understanding of the solar system.”
