Update on the great planet debate with Alan Stern

re: Update on the great planet debate with Alan Stern

Sirius — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:15:54 GMT

Make that one more. I also attended the Great Planet Debate in Laurel Maryland last August and agree that it was a fabulous learning experience. If the IAU general session in Prague in 2006 was characterized by discord, the conference at the JHU Applied Physics Lab was marked by respect, collegiality, and good humor. And although the debate between Mark Sykes and Neil Tyson, refereed by Ira Flatow, tended to be comedic showmanship, the presentations of the scientists and the two panel discussions were to-the-point, knowledgeable, and interesting.

Best of all, I got to ask questions of some of the principal figures in the issue. I asked Alan Stern where the idea about hydrostatic equilibrium as a baseline for planethood originated. He told me that he had come across the concept in a scientific paper he'd read: the idea appealed to him and he began to publicize it. His talk on the utility of the geophysical definition later in the conference was brief but compelling in its common sense.

Although I still feel the "geophysicals" have more logic on their side of the debate, it was eye-opening for me to listen to the dynamicists and those who subscribe to neither position. Renu Malhotra spoke authoritatively on planetary dispersion, and NASA's David Morrison presented thoughtful reasons why it is not productive to formulate any definitions of planethood -- at least now.

The debate didn't have a winner. No votes were taken or decisions made. There was some question whether the IAU might, in the face of the massive resistance it has experienced to parts of its definition, rescind its resolution at the upcoming 2009 general meeting, but no one at the GPD -- no one I heard, anyway -- volunteered to lead an uprising promoting any such action.

What the GPD did succeed in doing was let off steam and show that there is in fact a variety of opinion on the issue of what constitutes a planet. But it also suggested that, far enough in the future, there is the possibility of agreement on a definition. I went home greatly encouraged about that.

re: Update on the great planet debate with Alan Stern

laurele — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:30:54 GMT

I too attended the Great Planet Debate, and agree it was an amazing learning experience. The fact that it was open to any member of the public --exactly the opposite of IAU conferences speaks volumes about participating scientists' welcoming of public input and cultural considerations into this debate. It was interesting to learn about some of the political dynamics behind the IAU decision as well as find out that most planetary scientists are not IAU members. Shouldn't those who study planets be the ones to define what they are?

re: Update on the great planet debate with Alan Stern

Siobhan — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:31:00 GMT

I attended The Great Planet Debate (GPD). If you did not attend- you really missed out.

Both sides had a chance to express their views of the IAU definition But the kicker is, that educators and the general public had a chance to participate as well. I think The Great Planet Debate Conference is an example of what science can be.

Many of the points Alan Stern brings up here were expressed at the GPD Conference. His explanations are easy to understand (for those of us who are not scientists) and they makes sense!