Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- From: Greg Hennessy <greg.hennessy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:45:41 GMT
On 2006-08-29, tholen@xxxxxxxxxxxx <tholen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Astronomers don't need a definition for "planet", and IMO creating one
was a big mistake.
How else are astronomers supposed to answer the question "how many
planets are there in the solar system?" if we don't have a definition
of what a planet is?
That question comes from the public, not from astronomers.
You erroneously presuppose the question comes from the public, not
astronomers.
Not at all.
Yes at all. The question came from me, and I am an astronomer, so you
were erroneous in your presupposition that the question comes from the
public.
It is oxymoronic to assert that a definition isn't needed and that
questions can be answered by using a definition.
Irrelevant, given that no such assertion has been made.
Incorrrect. Check the text quoted above. The assertion that a
definition is not need has indeed been made.
I don't know why you make such easily disproved claim.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- From: tholen
- Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- References:
- Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- From: Greg Hennessy
- Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- From: tholen
- Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- From: Greg Hennessy
- Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- From: tholen
- Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- Prev by Date: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- Next by Date: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- Previous by thread: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- Next by thread: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|