[Sigia-l] The planetary classification conundrum... mental modelsoutside of the Web

[Gent, Andrew]

Hi Fred,

What you describe is not logic, but common belief. We think of Pluto as
a planet because we were told it was. If Charon actually does not circle
Pluto but they circle each other, then logic states they are the same
type of object. 

The problem is that logic cannot by itself overried common belief, which
is often passionately defended against all logic. Only time and effort
can change it. (As proven by the United States' resolute refusal to use
a more "logical" unit of measure than inches, feet, yards, and miles.)

Andrew

P.S. By the way, I am not arguing that the new classification is
correct, I don't know, I'm not an astrophysicist. I am arguing that
current thinking is not by definition logic.

-------------------------------------

[Fred said]

However, I have noticed that, while it makes perfect *logical* sense,
the way they have applied these definitions makes no *human* sense. By
this definition, Pluto's largest moon, Charon, is counter-intuitively
classified as a pluton. Apparently, Pluto and Charon orbit around the
same gravitational point in space. Charon does not actually orbit Pluto.

Logically, this makes Charon a pluton, but the problem is that the
entire world currently has the mental model of the planet and moon.
Very, very few people have the mental model of a binary planet orbiting
around a gravitational point. : )

The question this brings up for me is where is the point in
classification when we need to abandon logic for understanding?