Rick Froman wrote:
I believe that the Pluto story is actually a better example of paragraph 2 than of paragraph 1 in Marc's post. I don't think it is a good example at all of how scientists expect change in our conclusions as data accumulates. No new data accumulated to make this change.
On the contrary, when Pluto was first discovered, it was estimated to be
as large as the Earth (which would have made it a planet under almost
any definition). As data accumulated, and it became clear that it was
smaller than a number of *moons* (much less planets) in the solar
system, the move to change its status began. Then came the data of there
being a large belt of similar object in roughly the same orbit (the
Kuiper Belt). Finally, the discovery of a Kuiper Belt object larger than
Pluto (currently called 2003 UB313 or "Xena for short) finally sealed
Pluto's fate.
the word, "planet". My paperback dictionary, obviously way out of date, says that a planet is any heavenly body that revolves around the sun.
Like I tell my students, general dictionaries are lousy sources for
technical terms.
Regards,
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
416-736-5115 ex. 66164
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
=============================
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
