>
> The funny thing is, the whole thing smacks of trying to come up with an "objective" definition that fits a pre-concieved idea of what a planet should be. You decide what things you think should be planets, then pick out characteristics that they share that objects you'd rather not list as planets do not have. Voila, an objective definition that fits what you already decided! It reminds me of an essay on baseball statistics I read once, that claimed that when baseball statisticians fiddle with new stats that try to objectively measure performance, the "Ruth test" is applied to them. You work out your new method of statistically ranking sluggers, and if Babe Ruth doesn't come out on top, well, your method must be wrong!
>
> -- Dave

Good point, Dave. Scientists like to talk about how they use scientific method to find the truth and truth is all that matters, but many of them have pet theories and they look for evidence that supports those theories. If they ignore other evidence that might disprove their theory, they aren't being very scientific.

It really does seem like somebody was looking for a set of charactistics that would eliminate Pluto. True scientists would not have done that.
Howard