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

Hack WiFi Account From Phishing Attack With WifiPhisher

WiFi Phishing Attack With WifiPhisher Tool  Wifiphisher   is a security tool that mounts fast automated phishing attacks against WiFi networks in order to obtain secret passphrases and other credentials. It is a social engineering attack that unlike other methods it does not include any brute forcing. It is an easy way for obtaining credentials from captive portals and third party login pages or WPA/WPA2 secret passphrases. From the victim's perspective, the attack makes use in three phases: 1. Victim is being deauthenticated from her access point. Wifiphisher continuously jams all of the target access point's wifi devices within range by sending deauth packets to the client from the access point, to the access point from the client, and to the broadcast address as well. 2. Victim joins a rogue access point. Wifiphisher sniffs the area and copies the target access point's settings. It then creates a rogue wireless access point that is modeled on the target. It also sets up ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of Pluto: What Is being Defined?

I wanted to return to the issue of Pluto, which has already been the subject of a number of posts.  The International Astronomical Union (IAU) created a rich array of issues and problems when it undertook a definitional change that resulted in the demotion of Pluto to the class of "dwarf planets". The topic this time is what exactly did the IAU define? I was watching a PBS special on the status of Pluto a few days ago.  It included scenes from a diner where the genial Neil deGrasse Tyson was asking customers what they thought about the new status of Pluto.  The reponses varied, but the issue at hand was about whether Pluto was "a planet".  The diners all thought that they were dealing with the general concept signfied by the term "planet".  Yet there is reason to think they were mistaken. The IAU resolved (see http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/ ) concerning the following: "The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in o...
Post a Comment
Read more