On the controversy around the scientists renaming the definition of planet to exclude Pluto, however, I emphatically agree.
Adopting such a definition has accomplished, well, nothing whatsoever for the sake of science. Astronomy, clearly, had been progressing just fine in previous decades without a rigorous definition of “planet.” Telescopes, NASA-launched probes, and other instruments were bringing us more and more information about which objects exist in the solar system and about the nature of those objects. The term “planet” meanwhile, had long since ceased to play a substantive role in the science of astronomy. Before Copernicus, celestial bodies were divided between the planets (the moon, Mercury, the sun, Jupiter, etc.), which moved, and the stars, which didn’t. Contemporary astronomy, however, distinguishes among objects according to what they’re made of, so that the sun is a star and so forth. The very notion of a planet is, at this point, a piece of folk culture, not an important element of science. And according to cultural tradition, there are nine planets and Pluto is one of them.
Oh, mega word.
Take my body, for example. I'm some parts guy and some parts girl. Personally, I like the term 'hermaphrodite' to describe my sexuality. Others, however, have taken science seriously when they co-opted the word to mean only those creatures that had two fully functioning secual reproductive organs and could impregnate themselves.
Well, scientists, you are full of crap. Hermaphrodite referred to human beings when the ancient Greeks used the term. If they invented it they should know better than you how to use it.
All this is to say is that as lovely as science is it doesn't have the right to determine our language for us. If we happen to agree with them, fine. In the meantime they can keep their damned mitts off my sexual identity and my planets.
No comments:
Post a Comment