As I’m sure we all know, Pluto, the former ninth planet in our solar system, suffered a demotion 3 years ago when the International Astronomical Union reclassified it as a dwarf planet.
I won’t get into the specifics behind the decision, but I will say the public outcry over what I’d expect to be a minor scientific matter always baffled me. As Dr. Michael Brown of Monash University in Melbourne has put it, the debate’s like arguing over the distinction between a mountain and a hill. Personally, I find the IAU’s definition 3 years ago pretty reasonable.
But so many people don’t! People who might normally have as much interest in astronomy as I do in tax codes stood up for Pluto like it was a member of the family. Neil deGrasse Tyson has suggested this attachment may be partly because the former planet was discovered the same year that Mickey’s canine compatriot was first drawn, and partly because it had been the only planet found by an American.
I wonder, though, if it might have to do with the order of planets in the solar system being one of the few scientific facts everyone felt mastery over. Long mnemonicized by a very educated mother (or, in Saved By The Bell’s case, by the single word MVEMJSUNP), the nine planets and their placement represented an almost universally shared fact, something most people actually remembered from elementary-school science. That order was simple, unchanging, and accurate, unlike particle physics or medicine or technology. No one loves change, but I’d probably be a bit frustrated too if they changed any of the very few things I know about tax codes.
Be sure to read Astronomy magazine Senior Editor Michael Bakich's post about Pluto's place in his heart.
Of course, as they say, that’s just a theory. Why do you think people care so much Pluto’s planetary status? And what do you think about the IAU decision itself — any Plutophiles out there?
Related: