Another Good Question

[crokett]

Since Pluto is no longer a planet, does that mean all the astrology charts are wrong now?

[Richard in Smithville]

Pluto was always a mickey mouse planet anyway.

[BobSch]

Since Pluto is no longer a planet, does that mean all the astrology charts are wrong now?

You mean they were ever RIGHT??

[TheChief]

Since Pluto is no longer a planet, does that mean all the astrology charts are wrong now?

Astrologists would likely submit that the object in the heavens has not changed, merely its designation, so there is no change in the accuracy of their charts.

I would submit that regardless of what we term the bodies celestial the worth of the readings therefrom hasn't changed at all.

[ragswl4]

Since Pluto is no longer a planet,

Pluto always looked like a dog to me anyway. Could never figure out why folks ever called him a planet.

[Kristofor]

It's still a planet, it's just a dwarf planet...

Think about airplanes and the introduction of jet powered models. Before jets were common people wouldn't need to refer to a plane as being a propeller airplane because there were no other alternatives.

Likewise until dwarf planets became an "official" option with a specific definition (2006) there was no reason to hang that particular tag on Pluto. Pluto didn't change, and the old charts weren't "wrong" they're just not up to date with the additional (dwarf) info...

[vaking]

At least astrologists never lied. Astrologists never considered themselves scientists. I always thought of Astrology as Woodoo. As opposed to it astronomers and biologists did. Now we are being told that Pluto was never a planet and dinosaurs were birds and not reptiles. When scientists are telling us that things they had been teaching us before were all wrong - I don't feel comfortable. I have most respect for physics - there were very significant discoveries made in physics but they never tried to invalidate previous knowledge. Relativity, quantum physics, optics - all introduced new facts and defined limitations of pre-existed classical physics but where classical physics worked before it still remains valid. We still use Newton's equations, we just know they have some applicability limits. Discoveries in physics are incremental where discoveries in Astronomy or Biology seem to uproot all previous knowledge in those disciplines. Makes me question if biology or astronomy are true sciences. May be that's also Woodoo.

[stormdog74]

At least astrologists never lied. Astrologists never considered themselves scientists. I always thought of Astrology as Woodoo. As opposed to it astronomers and biologists did. Now we are being told that Pluto was never a planet and dinosaurs were birds and not reptiles. When scientists are telling us that things they had been teaching us before were all wrong - I don't feel comfortable. I have most respect for physics - there were very significant discoveries made in physics but they never tried to invalidate previous knowledge. Relativity, quantum physics, optics - all introduced new facts and defined limitations of pre-existed classical physics but where classical physics worked before it still remains valid. We still use Newton's equations, we just know they have some applicability limits. Discoveries in physics are incremental where discoveries in Astronomy or Biology seem to uproot all previous knowledge in those disciplines. Makes me question if biology or astronomy are true sciences. May be that's also Woodoo.

Biology and Astronomy are certainly true sciences. Sometimes it may feel like they are changing everything they told you before, but it is more like they are refining what they knew before and making it more accurate. All of science, including physics, is full of errors and it is better to think of changes in the field as progress; it doesn't refute everything done before.

The only perfect science is mathematics, which of course is why it isn't a science.

[crokett]

This was a non-serious question but I like that it started a discussion. For the record I don't believe in astrology. As for the dinosaurs vs birds, dinosaurs are still classified as reptiles, scientists now think that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

The problem with sciences like biology is it is based on what data is available. and some theories may require revision when new data is learned. For instance, one popular theory is a monster asteroid falling into the gulf of Mexico is what killed the dinosaurs. We know the crater is there, we know the asteroid hit approximately when the last dinosaurs died. There is evidence of the asteroid as far away as Colorado, however there have been no fossils found in the layer of rock that was laid down by the asteroid fallout. So the question is, are we just not looking in the right place or did something else do it?