test 1 Astronomy - May 2018 USA | Page 28

An organically early 2017, the two of us, along with a few others, refreshed the debate on the definition of planet in scientific nomenclature. The International Astronomical Union’s (IAU) historic definitional vote in 2006 recognized only eight solar system planets, and this has brought new focus to some underlying issues of importance to planetary science. Specifically, this debate touches on how words acquire their meaning and shape our thinking in both science and everyday life. Accordingly, the definition of planet is about much more than whether students learn Pluto’s name in a list of planets. In science, two languages describe the natural world: words (in our case, in English) and mathematics. Here, we’ll focus on words. Words possess power beyond communication: Word choice affects how we conceptualize, organize, synthesize, and contextualize informa- tion. Words are also how we scientists and educators communicate science to the public. In other words (so to speak), words structure our understanding of the world. This mental structure is what educational psychologists call a schema. Scientists define words as part of our scientific nomenclature with an eye toward schematic usefulness to concep- tualize, organize, synthesize, and contex- tualize information about nature. Nomenclatures’ definitions arise organi- cally: Scientists choose words and 28 A ST R O N O M Y • MAY 2018 phrases to describe their work, and write them in peer-reviewed journals and peri- odicals, and speak them aloud in scien- tific conferences and classrooms. Precedent is a key element in forming definitions (just ask a lawyer!) that both reflect and promote a useful schema for understanding the natural world. Conversely, scientific definitions are almost never and should never be handed down authoritarian- style from a central voting body, particularly when sci- entists of different disciplines have different uses for the same word. The artificial authority behind the few voted definitions in exis- tence, such as the IAU’s planet definition, should be viewed with skepticism and even dismissal. Science func- tions through individual experts making conclusions and coming to consensus, rather than being instructed on what has been decided. For instance, as far as I (Kirby) know as a planetary geologist, no one has ever voted on the definition for a barchan sand dune. Yet, through usage and prec- edent, a definition for barchan exists based on its introduction in the scien- tific literature in 1881 by Alexander von Middendorf. Britannica’s useful def- inition for barchan sand dune is based on the word’s precedent in the literature; the definition is a “crescent-shape sand dune produced by the action of wind predominantly from one direction … with a gentle slope facing toward the wind and a steep slope, known as the slip face, facing away from the wind.” (It so happens that barchan sand dunes are all over the place on Mars!) That definitions arise through pro- fessional and common usage are one blow against the legitimacy of the IAU’s definitional vote. Another blow arises from the fact that scientists of one discipline should not presume to define words for another. An illustration stems from considering the word metal. Astronomers use it to describe elements in stars heavier than helium. Metallurgists use the word in the more common way, yet astronomers and metallur- gists don’t fight over the def- inition — each user community knows what they mean when they use the word metal. What would happen if the metallurgical community declared an official defini- tion of metal and then publicly scorned astronomers for using a different defini- tion, saying, “I wish they would just get over it”? Just as different definitions of metal serve different communities, we, as plan- etary scientists, find it useful to define a planet as a substellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and has enough gravitation to be round due to Words possess power beyond communication: Word choice affects how we conceptualize, organize, synthesize, and contextualize information.