alt Hacker NewsThe actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IAU definition) should be used in non-astronomical contexts.
Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. An IAU classification shouldn't be used to try and retroactively change that, because the IAU does not have control over history and culture. It's a fun fact (did you know that Pluto is not classified as a planet by astronomers?) not a diktat.
Similarly, a banana is 'officially' a berry, which means that it is classified as a berry by botanists. This does not mean it is considered a berry in any other contexts. If you told someone you had made a berry crumble and it was filled with bananas, you would look strange. We have countless examples of this (often focused around food): a tomato does not belong in a fruit salad no matter what botanists say.
Different terms are used with different specificity in different settings. Language and culture and [older disciplines] are not governed by the rules of [newer disciplines or bodies]. If people with 'I love space' t-shirts would stop "um actually"-ing, no one would have a problem.
Replies
> The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance
This is the actual problem everywhere.
Which would make the article's subjects "weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that" a non-astronomical definition be used in an astronomical context.
I wonder how happy each group would be by this solution. Planet as a scientific and non-scientific usage.
Conclusively, science class would not teach Pluto as a planet (it should after all stick to the science) and English class will discuss the cultural impact of planet Pluto! Maybe write poems about the importance and impact of 9 word mnemonics? Sounds fun.
My headcanon is that people would hate it so so much! I can't wait to see that as a distant observer.
The term "fish" is a case in point. Traditionally, the term means a creature which lives underwater, which would include whales and dolphins, and indeed used to, despite being mammals.
It gets worse. Whales and dolphins are more closely related to certain fish than those fish are related to some other fish. (As are we by the way.) There are also some fish, such as lungfish or certain eels which can spend more time out of water than whales and dolphins can. Some fish can even breathe air, which undermines another assumption about whales etc.
For some reason, I rarely hear fewer people objecting to jellyfish or shellfish being referred to as fish, even though these are more distantly related to fish than mammals are.
So biologically, the term "fish" doesn't make much sense.
While reading your comment it occurred to me that virtually all reporting on (or talking about) science involves applying it to an unsuitable context. Schrödinger's cat is probably the most prolific example of this.
You’ve explained something very well that I hope certain groups of people will try to internalize.
My understanding was part of the definition was changed thereby recategorizing Pluto?
Peanuts, cashews, almonds, walnuts, pecans, Brazil nuts and pistachios are culinary nuts but NOT botanical nuts.
Botanical berries: Bananas, tomatoes, grapes, cucumbers, eggplants, avocados and peppers, but NOT strawberries, raspberries, blackberries or mulberries.
Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words.