And that's fitting... because Illinois state government keeps sinking to lower and lower rungs of the Underworld:
The lllinois State Senate passed a resolution to reestablish Pluto's "full planetary status" and declare an official "Pluto Day".
The full text can be found here. Although it appears it might be tongue-in-cheek, I've heard a rumor suggesting that this may have been serious legislation intended to save state money on science textbook revisions. (I can't substantiate that.)
So the State Senate is either assuming the role of satirical humor outlet, or a scientific assembly. Either way, a sound function of government by any rational standard!
I note that the resolution reads ambiguously: "... that as Pluto passes through Illinois' night skies, that it be reestablished with full planetary status". Should we assume they mean that Pluto is only a planet as it passes through Illinois' night skies?
At this point, I don't think it's unfair to assume that of them.
3 comments:
This is not satirical. The resolution is meant to honor Illinois native Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, and to protest the controversial demotion of Pluto by four percent of the International Astronomical Union, most of whom are not planetary scientists. Their decision was rejected by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto.
Many textbook companies and teachers are choosing not to revise textbooks anyway, as they understand that this is an ongoing debate and that there are legitimate scientific reasons for classifying Pluto as a planet.
I'm pretty sure the resolution is meant as a general rejection of Pluto's demotion, meaning its intention is that Pluto is a planet no matter whose skies it is traversing.
Regardless of what one thinks of this relatively pedantic issue as to whether Pluto should be considered a "major" planet, or just a "minor" one (note that either way, Pluto and indeed the entire Kuiper Belt will go on existing, and teachers are free to tell their students about them), the purpose of my post was to state my opinion that I find it absurd that a state government would attempt to weigh in on a scientific issue, as if they have any expertise or jurisdiction.
I have no qualms with them honoring a native son. As an Illinoisan who attended public schools, I certainly always held Casimir Pulaski in high regard. (But anyway, wouldn't Kansas be a better fit for Tombaugh?)
Tombaugh could actually be considered a native son of four states--Illinois, where he was born; Kansas, where he spent some time growing up; Arizona, where he discovered Pluto; and New Mexico, where he spent most of his later years and founded NMSU's astronomy department.
I believe the classification of Pluto is more than a pedantic issue. Minor planet is a term used to describe asteroids, and Pluto is not an asteroid. The issue is not whether or not the Kuiper Belt and Pluto will go on existing; the issue is, will we adopt an accurate description of each of them, or will we fudge crucial differences, which is a disservice to science and education. Teachers are free to tell their students what they choose, but not all are familiar with astronomy, and if textbooks omit the distinction between planets, which are spherical bodies, and shapeless rocks, the chances are, many teachers will never think of raising the issue.
Most of the four percent of the IAU who voted on the demotion don't have expertise in planetary science either. Many people are not aware of this fact. Astronomy has become so specialized that people who study any subfields pay little attention to those outside their realms of expertise. If you watch the proceedings of the IAU vote, which are available on its web site, you will see that in addition to a state of general confusion and chaos in the rush to come to a decision, at least one astronomer stands up and says, "I learned a lot about the solar system from this discussion." Shouldn't he have learned that in astronomy 101?
The IAU totally bungled this issue and then expect people to blindly follow their dictate. I see the vote by legislators as a rejection of what the IAU did and a statement that as legislators, they understand that this was done in a flawed process and resulted in a flawed outcome. The legislature cannot impose its view any more than the IAU can, so once again, it's a symbolic statement of dissent with the demotion.
Post a Comment