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

[Fred Beecher]

On 8/16/06, Gent, Andrew <Andrew.Gent at hp.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

That's exactly my question... at what point do we sacrifice logic to
an existing mental model, aka "common belief?" Rigid classification
logic may dictate that Charon is a pluton and not a moon, but does it
make sense to ram that down the throats of non-astronomers? If this
were a Web site, we'd say absolutely not. Where do we draw the line
between needing to adhere to the mental model and needing to change
it?

- F.