Man's understanding did not change. There was no new information about Pluto's age, composition, motion or location. Pluto's loss of planethood was pure semantics, a change in the definition of the word "planet." The only new science was a couple of centuries' worth of discoveries of other bodies orbiting the Sun -- there aren't just nine big orbiting rocks out there, but dozens.
Equally fascinating is not all astronomers agreed with the change and the politics involved with said change is quite telling.
Academics aren't unanimous on the definition of terms. Film at 11.
Liberals think someone gave them the keys to science. No one did.
There are no keys. Science isn't locked.
Sure there was new information...the scientists even said as much. They said the new information influenced their decision in fact.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-402099/Pluto-longer-planet-say-astronomers.html
Here they discuss UB 313, which they discovered in 2003 (or 2005?). If you want to argue man’s understanding of semantics changed...fine, but this isn’t the lesson to take from Pluto’s demotion.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/10/why-pluto-is-no-longer-a-planet/
(A pretty fun article about why it’s a dwarf planet).
“Academics aren’t unanimous on the definition of terms. Film at 11”.
Well that’s one lesson I was referring to...although, I’m not so certain “academics” played 100% into the decision making process.
Liberals think someone gave them the keys to science. No one did.
“There are no keys. Science isn’t locked”.
Exactly, so when do you think liberals will begin to grasp such an astute observation...what with the global warming “debate is over” and “settled evolutionary science” we hear from algore and Chrissy Fit Matthews and the closet FR liberals ad nauseum?????