This is definitely a book I’m looking forward to…Boyle, a top science writer for MSNBC.com, makes the case for Pluto’s planethood, while also telling the fascinating story of the underdog “planet” that everybody in America loves (for most assuredly non-scientific reasons!). The book website is here; you can pre-order on Amazon.com here. And here is the Publisher’s Weekly review:
The Case for Pluto: How a Little Planet Made a Big Difference Alan Boyle. Wiley, $22.95 (272p) ISBN 978-0-470-50544-1
When the International Astronomical Union voted in 2006 to evict Pluto from the roster of planets in our solar system, little did they expect the public outcry that would arise. Boyle, an award-winning science writer and the science editor at MSNBC.com, presents the issues regarding Pluto’s status, both popular and scientific, in a winning fashion. After its discovery in 1930, the icy rock formerly known as Planet X was embraced by the public imagination, partly due to its status as “the oddball of the solar system”; no doubt having Walt Disney name a cartoon dog after it also helped. But as astronomers learned more about the solar system and the distant Kuiper Belt at its fringes, they realized that Pluto, with its lopsided spin and strangely tilted orbit was very special indeed. Now astronomers have identified at least five dwarf planets, or “mini-worlds,” orbiting our Sun. When the New Horizons spacecraft reaches Pluto in 2015, we’ll know more about this “underdog of the solar system.” Even then, the furor is bound to continue. Photos. (Nov.)
October 6th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Of all the many critical issues facing humanity, of all the controversies that divide us, why should we even bother with this one? Who cares whether we call Pluto a planet, a planetoid, a subplanet, an iceball, a superasteroid, or a rock? It’s just a big hunk of stuff at the outer edges of the solar system. A common housefly, Musca Domestica, is a far more complex and interesting thing than Pluto. Why not argue about whether it should be called Musca Domestica or Musca Universalis or Musca Gloriosus or Musca Odiosus?
October 6th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Well, I think Neil deGrasse Tyson made a pretty convincing argument why Pluto deserved to be demoted in his book, “The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet”, but in the interest of fairness, I’ll probably give this one a look. It’s going to take a lot to convince me though.
I think it’s safe to say though, that Pluto doesn’t give a rat’s butt about whether or not it’s considered a planet.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
What public outcry ? I live in the UK, and there was none.
Could you offer an explanation as to why an international science organisation should give primacy to the views of the American public ? Other than some kind of American exceptionalism that is.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
» Chris Mooney:
the fascinating story of the underdog “planet” that everybody in America loves
Everybody? Loves? Really? Do you even believe these overblown vacuities yourself?
October 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“Pluto had it coming”
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
October 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
What is interesting about Pluto is that one of the advocates for it classification as a dwarf planet is one of the best scientists in the US at communicating science (astronomy in particular) to the public, Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson.
As Matt raised, why the outcry in the US?
October 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Chris, if you cannot even justify (in spite of repeated requests) why you cited Pluto as some big example of the problem with science communication in the opening paragraphs of your book, at least don’t keep harping on it. Even people who otherwise liked your book said they didn’t understand the point of it. Maybe it’s something you carelessly flung in there on a whim? Really, there’s absolutely nothing wrong in admitting an error.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Consider the source of the outcry, this is the U.S. after all. Excuse me while I go eat too many cheese burgers and watch football all day. You’re not fat until you can’t stand up after all.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Pluto? Again!?!
/facepalm
Give it up, Chris. Your Pluto example was a non-starter. There was no enormous outcry and you’ve yet to justify why public opinion should trump sound science.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
It looks like the book is going to make the case that dwarf planets in general (not just Pluto) should technically be considered planets. I personally think the solution to these semantics is to simply refer to all of these places, along with the planets’ moons, as worlds – at least when engaging the public. People know what a world is, and Pluto and the other dwarf planets are most definitely big worlds to explore.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
This is just beating a dead horse.
This book will zoom to the top 100,00 current titles on Amazon.com. Everyone is waiting for it down at the malt shoppe.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
“…the fascinating story of the underdog “planet” that everybody in America loves…”
Reading this made me vomit in the back of my mouth a little bit.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
There has been an international outcry of opposition to the IAU decision, and the claim that it is only among Americans is an outright myth. Visit the web sites of astronomy clubs and groups online, and you will find opposition to the IAU decision from people all over the world. From running a blog advocating the overturning of the demotion over the last few years, I have heard the outcry against the decision personally from far too many people to count.
In fact, the IAU decision itself was political. Only 424 astronomers (four percent of the IAU) made this controversial decision and adopted a vague, unusable planet definition. The requirement that an object “clear its orbit” was concocted specifically to exclude Pluto and keep the number of planets in our solar system low. The IAU definition makes no sense in stating that dwarf planets are not planets at all, a departure from the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to this definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another location is essentially useless.
Significantly, hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission, signed a formal petition opposing the IAU definition. They favor a broader planet definition that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star. The spheroidal part is important because objects become spherical when they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity, a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium.
The IAU should take responsibility for the highly flawed definition adopted by only four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in 2006. However, the IAU should not be viewed as the sole authority on the definition of planet. Many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU. Should they not have a say in this matter? Something does not become fact simply because a tiny group that calls itself an authority says so. It is significant that hundreds of planetary scientists led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern immediately signed a formal petition opposing the IAU definition. That petition can be found here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/
There are other venues through which a planet definition can be determined, such as last year’s Great Planet Debate at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. Audio and video proceedings from this far more balanced conference, which I was fortunate to attend, can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/
Tyson presents only one side of this debate, and people deserve to know both sides. The benefit of this book is that it presents the other side in what is clearly still an ongoing debate.
Stay tuned: My book on Pluto is next.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Are you sure John Boyle is not a pseudonym of Watty Piper who wrote “The Litttle
PlanetEngine that Could”?October 6th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Tempest in a teapot. The whole debate, from start to finish.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I think the phrase “make a mountain out of a molehill” just got redefined, groomed and fitted with jet engines. Seriously, FOUR books on such a trivial issue? Book publishing costs clearly seem to have hit rock bottom.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I just got Tyson’s “The Pluto Files” and am looking forward to reading it. Soon as I finish Storm World, actually.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“Something does not become fact simply because a tiny group that calls itself an authority says so.”
By that rationale, scientific publishing is a fraud. Tiny groups of scientists, using the scientific method, determine facts all the time.
Apparently the only demonstrable harm by the IAU decision is that a bunch of astronomers are supposedly pissed off.
Reading the official IAU resolutions, I see nothing to support Kornfeld’s assertions that “The IAU definition makes no sense in stating that dwarf planets are not planets at all” or that if the Earth was is in Pluto’s orbit that it wouldn’t be a planet.
In essence, what we have is a series of political arguments to revisit a decision over a scientific definition. Are there reasonable scientific arguments to claim that Pluto is more of a kind with the eight non-dwarf planets that with the other two dwarf planets? They haven’t been made here, and probably won’t be found in Boyle’s book. The blurb there suggests a history rather than an argument.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:41 am
I really wonder why Mr. Mooney keeps returning to Pluto, as if it has something to do with scientific illiteracy. The whole hulabaloo around Pluto has for most people been just a form of entertainment.
A much more interesting controversy would be, for example, the possible opposition of Americans towards the metric system:
http://www.google.fi/search?hl=fi&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afi%3Aofficial&hs=LT9&q=oppose+metric+system&btnG=Haku&meta=
Moreover, confusions around the metric system have had real consequences in science:
http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/
Has there been any research if unfamiliar units discourage interest in science? I think that would be much more interesting than the speculation of the proper name of a stone billions of kilometers away.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:58 am
—- I really wonder why Mr. Mooney keeps returning to Pluto Matti K.
Now, that’s a question I can clear up for you right away. IT’S HIS BLOG, HE GETS TO DECIDE WHAT HE PUTS ON IT!
Let me break this amazing fact to you. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. It’s not as if he was being sneaky in posting on the subject, it’s rather clear what the topic of this thread is.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:29 am
“—- I really wonder why Mr. Mooney keeps returning to Pluto Matti K.”
“Now, that’s a question I can clear up for you right away. IT’S HIS BLOG, HE GETS TO DECIDE WHAT HE PUTS ON IT!”
The question asked “why” not “by what rights.” No one is questioning his right to decide what to right about; Matt is merely asking why Mooney — yet again — has decided to exercise that right to highlight this trivial non-issue. You should perhaps take off your Mooney-fanboy kneepads and improve your reading comprehension.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Pluto is a rock with a weird orbit. Classification is a cop-out by our human minds
October 7th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
— Matt is merely asking why Mooney — yet again — has decided to exercise that right to highlight this trivial non-issue. Woody
Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, Woody. Well, why do his opponents keep up their petty harping on the story choices he makes for his blog? What next? His taste in home furnishings and car color?
As to my liking the owners of the blog, I am grateful for The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America. Both of which got them a lot more flack than is warranted.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Thanks so much for the mention, Chris, I hope I won’t let you down. I agree with Neil DeGrasse Tyson on a lot of what he has to say about Pluto and the other dwarf planets. I think he would be the first to tell you (if you ask him straight out) that it makes no sense to draw the line at nine, eight or 13 when you’re talking about the solar system. And I don’t want to make the book out to be a totally serious screed … it’s a funny subject. That’s what’s so great about “The Pluto Files,” and I hope “The Case for Pluto” as well. Besides, Neil is a big guy, and he was on the wrestling team in high school, so I know better than to try to take him down. That said, I think you’ll find that my book tells a more complete story about how the scientific process worked (not always well) in this case.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
*In essence, what we have is a series of political arguments to revisit a decision over a scientific definition.*
It was the IAU and the Pluto-is-not-a-planet faction that introduced the idea that this had anything to do with politics (specifically, the false and oft-repeated assertion that no one cares about Pluto’s status except Americans) into the debate, along with other propagandistic and nonsensical notions about cartoon dogs and so forth. If we want, we can turn it around and say (as one writer for the Houston Chronicle suggested) that Pluto’s demotion is the IAU’s way of punishing the US for what George W. Bush did as president. But this is supposed to be a scientific debate and what I see is not much science and a lot of snottiness (where it comes from, I don’t know) and attempts to impose a flawed definition of planet on a society that continues to resist accepting it. If some people (like certain astronomers and the people at McDonald’s) continue to ignore what the IAU–correction, a small minority of the IAU membership and an even smaller minority of the global astronomical community–declared in Prague three years ago, well, that means that the IAU is reaping what it sowed. Its credibility has taken a hit, just as some predicted.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Because there are written conventional rules to be followed in naming species. The housefly was named by Linnaeus in the 18th Century and therefore the name has temporal priority. It will never change (short of abandoning the binomial system altogether). There is no argument to be had.
(By the way none of these examples would be acceptable…the Latin(ized) binomial must be italicized, and only the generic epithet (a noun) is capitalized; the specific epithet (an adjective) never is. So it’s Musca domestica.)
October 8th, 2009 at 6:14 am
“Well, why do his opponents keep up their petty harping on the story choices he makes for his blog? What next? His taste in home furnishings and car color?”
Because the choice of highlighting the Pluto story in this book was such a false note, even in the context of the arguments made in the book, that returning to it again and again reinforces the conclusion that book is full of shoddy writing, weak reasoning and shallow arguments. This idea is further reinforced by the hyped and juvenile nonsense that “everyone in America” loves Pluto. Rather than being “petty” or akin to taste in furnishings and car color, the “harping” on the story choice is commentary on the book, itself, and the misguided, unsatisfactory and ultimately unsuccessful treatment the subject received in it.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:43 am
— Because the choice of highlighting the Pluto story in this book was such a false note, even in the context of the arguments made in the book, Woody
Just as it was his choice to post this blog piece, it was his, his co-author’s, his editor and his publisher to determine what would go into Unscientific America. I didn’t think it struck a false note or was out of place in the book, you do, neither of us get to decide what went into it.
That’s life.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Chris,
This may be the only time where I find myself agreeing with Skeptic, Matt Penfold (whom I regard otherwise as a jerk, since he loves to repeat lies and half-truths about me), and Peter Beattie.
I think AMNH astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson is right – and not merely because he is a prominent Bronx Science alumnus nor the host of NOVA Science Now nor a worthy successor to Carl Sagan – in his assessment of Pluto’s status as an escaped Kuiper Belt object.
Pluto isn’t a planet anymore. Just deal with it (BTW the same advice I give to evolution denialists who still insist that evolution is “only a theory”.).
Sincerely yours,
John
October 8th, 2009 at 9:26 am
@ Laurel -
I think you’ll find me reading “Angela’s Ashes” again (which I haven’t done since 1996) before I pick up a book – any book, and that includes yours – which tries to make the case for Pluto as a bona fide planet. I certainly commend your enthusiasm, but I believe your efforts would be better suited in confronting evolution denialists than in challenging Neil de Grasse Tyson.
Sincerely yours,
John
October 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am
“the fascinating story of the underdog “planet” that everybody in America loves”
OMG, Santorum was right! Allow gay marriage, and before you know it, we’re sliding down the slippery slope to man-on-Pluto!
“I really wonder why Mr. Mooney keeps returning to Pluto”
Frequent flier miles.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Dan S. -
Chris thinks that Pluto is the most important example of mainstream science “ignoring” public opinion. I almost fell out of my seat laughing and shaking my head when I saw his earliest UA blogs pertaining to this, and
made the point that science isn’t a “popularity contest”. If it was, then do you think only evolution would be taught in the Anglo – American world?
October 8th, 2009 at 11:55 am
We need to understand what’s happening here. Mooney made the whole trivial and silly issue about Pluto the opening salvo of his book; that implied right away that he would have to defend it, especially in the first few weeks when he could not afford to negatively influence book sales. After this almost every reviewer including the positive ones either thought that the issue was completely off the mark when it came to delineating problems with science communication, or that it was downright silly and a big waste of time. However Mooney did not admit even at that point that it was a mistake, either because he did not want to own up to it or because he genuinely thought (and still thinks) it’s a big deal, or because again he simply does not want to negatively influence sales revenues.
Now of course it’s too late for him to admit his mistake because it’s going to make him look stupid. What I cannot understand is why he is further reinforcing the perception by continuing to allude to this rather insignificant issue when there are other matters that are far more important to attend to. Seriously Mooney, Pluto is not even among the bottom 10% of important issues in today’s world. Seriously, Pluto is a footnote to a footnote compared with problems of climate change, evolution, poverty and genuine problems with science communication. I don’t understand why Mooney is hell bent these days on portraying himself as an intellectual lightweight. And it would not have even been this sad if The Republican War on Science were not such a fine book.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
@ Sorbet (@33),
Well stated. I endorse your remarks completely. Moreover, I might add that I know of at least noted NYU journalism professor who believes that Chris “is hell bent these days on portrarying himself as an intellectual lightweight. And it would not have even been this sad if The Republican War on Science were not such a fine book.”
But Pluto isn’t the only obvious symptom. Another, equally egregious example is his apparent hero “worship” of Carl Sagan, which borders perilously close to the same “worship” I have seen from McCourties (zealous diehard fans of Frank McCourt) of their literary demigod.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
*Pluto isn’t a planet anymore. Just deal with it (BTW the same advice I give to evolution denialists who still insist that evolution is “only a theory”.).*
Guilt by association now (regarding Pluto is a planet is like denying evolution). LOL
Very scientific.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Mark,
Science is not a popularity contest. If a substantial number of planetary scientists have concluded that Pluto is not, strictly speaking, a real planet, but instead, a wayward Kuiper Belt object, then that’s a determination which the public will have to live with. If most of the public – refuses to accept that evolution is a both a valid scientific fact and a valid scientific theory – then they will have to get use to the idea that, according to mainstream science, evolution is both a valid scientific fact and a valid scientific theory.
For years, while in graduate school, I strongly resisted the hypothesis that the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction was caused by an extraterrestrial impact. However, when I finally saw the substantial evidence collected and verified by Alan Hildebrand, William Boynton, and their colleagues at the University of Arizona’s Department of Planetary Sciences, then I HAD TO CHANGE MY MIND and recognize that theirs was valid scientific evidence demonstrating such an impact.
If you want a popularity contest, then sure, I’ll join in on any, for example, who might be the foremost memoirist of our time (And here, I will concede my own substantial bias, since I was a student of Frank McCourt’s in high school.). But we’re not here debating the merits as to whether or not Frank McCourt was a great writer. Instead, we are here debating what is – or what isn’t – valid scientific data. Again, if the public refuses to listen to the scientists, then they’ll just have to DEAL WITH IT.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Which scientists? The ones who agree with you on Pluto? Or the ones that don’t?
I’m not questioning evolution, but any scientist who’s worth the name accepts it, so the theory of evolution has won the “popularity contest” among scientists over creationism. Whether or not Pluto should be classified as a major planet, however, remains controversial, in the astronomical community. And much of the general public thinks this reclassification makes no sense also. I see no reason why we should not have a *scientific* definition of planet that’s simple and easy to understand, not just for professional astronomers but for the general public as well.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Mark,
Science is a tentative, self-correcting process in search of trying to understand the physical realities of the universe. Maybe you missed it, but I had to change completely my view of an asteroid impact-caused terminal Cretaceous mass extinction after reading Alan’s – and his colleague’s – work.
We have two well-defined types of planets; terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) and the gas (Jovian) giants (Jupitor, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune). Pluto sticks out like a sore thumb, and not merely because of its unique orbit around the sun. Its chemical composition seems to suggest that it is a wayward Kuiper Belt object that was trapped into its current orbit.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Nice to see people still unable to process an obvious example. Pluto was a good way to characterize the problem.
Here’s another example I blogged about this morning that I’m sure some will intentionally not understand:
We just watched the NASA broadcast of the booster rocket hitting the moon. It was … anticlimactic. Where was the big poof of dust?
We’re sitting there (me, my wife and my two kids) in the seconds before the rocket hits the surface and I’m thinking – OK, switch to the view from the instrument pack. Switch the view. Switch the view to a telescope. Switch. Switch.
Nope. We watched the view from the rocket going in. And on impact, the signal just goes dead. Then we see a bunch of NASA engineers, one of whom just won’t give another guy a high-five. Leaves him hanging.
So, no impact and images of engineers with either lame social skills or raging office politics.
Where was the big poof of dust?
This thing got pumped up and was a great PR opportunity. I hope we get good science out of it too. And perhaps later today we’ll see some cool images from telescopes. But at that moment – after all the talk of a big poof of dust, we were wondering why we didn’t get to see the big poof of dust.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
@ TB -
Yours is not an apt analogy. Much better IMHO is all the “hoopla” about cold fusion nearly twenty years ago. Sadly, your comment demonstrates that you don’t really appreciate or understand how and why scientists make certain interpretations of the data collected. The fact remains that Pluto is an anomaly, a fluke, and one that can be explained better by assuming that it is an escaped Kuiper belt object that was pulled closer toward the Sun, eventually assuming its rather unique orbit around it.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Kwok, thanks for proving my point. The fact is, apparently no one thought of putting a camera on the instrument pack following the booster rocket. All the kids who got up early and even camped out all night got nothing to spark their imagination.
Would anything have been visible – even in the infrared, once it entered shadow? I don’t know. But they didn’t even try.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:45 am
@ TB -
Sorry, but it’s not NASA’s job to emulate Hollywood. And no, I didn’t prove your point.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:57 am
The answer I expected. It is their job to sell their work to the public in order to get funding. Kwok = oblivious
October 12th, 2009 at 11:10 am
@ TB -
NASA already does “sell their work to the public” via its press releases and public access to images from Hubble Space Telescope and all of its planetary probe missions; past and present. Yours is still a risible observaiton IMHO.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Just want to correct an error on my part. Apparently there was a second camera on the following spacecraft. From the LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-moon10-2009oct10,0,3679349.story
“Some scientists suspect the camera settings on the second spacecraft were incorrect, preventing it from spotting the plume. But they were hopeful that the plume did occur and that observatories worldwide watching the event were able to detect the plume’s contents.
Mike Bicay, the director of science at Ames, said an infrared camera aboard the second spacecraft picked up changes in temperature as it neared the moon. That could be an indication, he said, that it was flying through the plume kicked up by the Centaur rocket. If so, scientists might still pluck success from the mission’s anticlimactic ending.”
So, my bad and good job NASA for trying.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
TB -
It was my understanding that the cameras on the second probe were to record the outcome of the first probe’s crash, before the second probe crashed onto the Moon. Could be worse, I suppose. Both NASA and ESA have lost space probes in Martian orbit in recent years (Oh wait, I think I know the answer for both. Probably a cloaked Romulan warship seized them. Though I do recall vaguely a report that debris from one of those probes was spotted on the Martian surface.).