Skip to main content

Is the IAU Definition of "Planet" A Quality Definition?

In this post we continue to learn lessons from the International Astronomical Union's definition of "planet" in 2006 (http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/).  The question tackled here is whether the IAU's definition of "planet" is a quality definition.  After close examination, it seems it is not.

Here is the definition:

'A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.' 

And here is the analysis of the definition:

(a) The definition is not actually of "planet" but of "planets in our Solar System".  This can be mined out of the text of Resolution 5A, which states: 

"RESOLUTION 5A The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way..." 

So the IAU did not define "planet" at all, but merely "planets in our Solar System".  We will need to explore this in a further post, but it is clearly a source of confusion, and hence the definition is of poor quality (definitions are not supposed to cause confusion).

(b) The superordinate genus identified in the definition is "celestial body".  If I look up "celestial body" in Wordnet (http://wordnet.princeton.edu) I get "natural objects visible in the sky".  So, celestial bodies must include planets, stars, comets, asteroids, nebulae, galaxies, and so on.  As such, the genus seems too remote for a quality definition - it is little better than "thing".  There seems to be a strong possibility that it could be divided into genera that are superordinate to "planet", but subordinate to "celestial body".  What are they?  That is not my job - I am not an astronomer.  But I can tell you that a more proximate superordinate genus is required for this to be a quality definition.

(c) The definition contains the phrase "is in orbit around the Sun".  This clearly shows that only our Solar System" is being considered, as we saw above.  Guess what - I could tell from the term "planets in our Solar System" (the definiendum) that the planets would be orbiting the Sun.  That is part of the definition (or description) of "our Solar System".  The term "Sun" should not have been used in the definition.  It is an essential characteristic of "our Solar System", not "planet".  Another point that shows we do not have a quality definition.

(d) If the IAU chooses to define "planet in our Solar System" it is obliged to define "extrasolar planet" (the coordinate species) and "planet" (the proximate superordinate genus).  At the very least these should have been referenced in Resolution 5A.  There is no such reference in 5A.  Again, an indication of a poor quality definition.

(e) What does "(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit" actually mean?  What is "neighbourhood" in the celestial context?  It is easily understood as a general (human, non-astronomical) term, but that cannot possibly apply here.  What is it?  Suppose I make the presumption that "cleared" means "to have removed matter".  I really do not have any right to do so, but suppose I do.  Well, the Earth has not absorbed the Moon or ejected the Moon from its proximity.  So is the Earth not a planet?  This is a big failure, because definitions are supposed to make things clear.  Again, we have a poor quality definition.

In defense of the IAU, it is quite difficult to produce definitions in natural science.  There is usually no alternative to them being other than descriptive (as opposed to essential or causal).  However, the IAU could have done better.

Thus, we see that we have a poor quality definition of "planet".  Sorry, I meant to say "planet in our Solar System".
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Create Your Own Social Networking Site

Create Your Own Social Networking Site JCOW: Ethical Hacking Top 10 reasons to choose Jcow:- 1. Handle more traffic - Clean codes and Dynamic caching can lower the CPU load and  speed up your website. 2 Make your site more interactive - Well designed Jcow applications help you members to connect and communicate with others more effectively. 3 Add questions to the Registration Form - You can add new member fields, which will be displayed to the registration form, profile form, and the member browsing form. 4 Easily share stuff - Within the AJAX sharing Box, your members can publish status,  photos, videos, and blogs. 5 Customize and Extend your Jcow Network - A Jcow network consists of core apps(like "Friends" and "Messages") and optional apps(like "Blogs" and ""Videos"). You can enable/disable optional apps. You can also develop your own apps. 6 Every profile could be Unique - Members can customize their own profile theme and  add music play...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of Abstraction in Definitions of Data Objects

I think there is a major problem in not being able to understand and work with different levels of abstraction.  By "abstraction" in this sense I mean one concept system that somehow describes or defines (not merely relates to) another concept system.  I think this is a big problem for definitions in data models. Let us take an example in a retail business such as mortgage banking: Customer Name.  Customer Name exists in the business.  They use it all the time.  Maybe it is sometimes called Borrower Name, but the concept is the same.  This is the Level 1 abstraction. Now let us think of data values in a column in a table that holds Customer Name.  These data values are stored as a code of 1's and 0's.  Of course these bits are rendered into something we can read.  However, this is not the same as the Customer Name in the business.  I worked for a place where they prefixed the name of anyone who had recently left with "ZZZ"....
Post a Comment
Read more

The Humpty-Dumpty Principle in Definitions

In dealing with empty concepts, we came across the issue that if somebody uses a term that potentially has an unintelligible definition, they are likely to defend themselves by quickly making up some kind of definition.   I strongly suspect that in such cases, the usage of the term will be inconsistent with the definition.  Which brings us to Humpty-Dumpty. Lewis Carroll (Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) is best known for his children's' books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass .  It is in the latter that Humpty Dumpty - an argumentative egg perched on a wall has the following exchange with Alice: 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "...
Post a Comment
Read more