Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,535
edits
Changes
→Forgive me: more facts
:::::::For purposes of this discussion, a planet is defined as fact A, it is observable in nature and undisputed. How do we determine what constitutes fact A? Is it done be obesrving nature, or is done by a consensus of professionals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::For purposes of this discussion, a planet is defined as fact A, it is observable in nature and undisputed. How do we determine what constitutes fact A? Is it done be obesrving nature, or is done by a consensus of professionals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: The definition of a planet isn't a fact, it is a definition. Thus the question of if Ceres (previously classified as an asteroid because it was part of the asteroid belt) is a planet, or if Charon is a planet (the center of rotation in the Pluto-Charon system isn't inside of Pluto - potentially an issue with the Earth-Moon system in a few million years too), or if bodies larger than Pluto beyond Pluto's orbit are to be classified as planets too. If you want to talk about planets, you need to define that word. The definition of the word is by a consensus of professionals. It is the same way one divides up the types of stars - O B A F G K M and all the various subtypes. These are not ''facts'' written in nature, but rather human classifications of objects in an attempt to understand them better. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: The definition of a planet isn't a fact, it is a definition. Thus the question of if Ceres (previously classified as an asteroid because it was part of the asteroid belt) is a planet, or if Charon is a planet (the center of rotation in the Pluto-Charon system isn't inside of Pluto - potentially an issue with the Earth-Moon system in a few million years too), or if bodies larger than Pluto beyond Pluto's orbit are to be classified as planets too. If you want to talk about planets, you need to define that word. The definition of the word is by a consensus of professionals. It is the same way one divides up the types of stars - O B A F G K M and all the various subtypes. These are not ''facts'' written in nature, but rather human classifications of objects in an attempt to understand them better. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::ok so we're getting closer to the method. For example, what ColinR and others wish to insert is '''the fact''' that '''most beleive''' "'''X'''", (X being undefined as either theory or fact). But the the fact is, the fact they wish to insert is, the fact that most beleive undefined "'''X'''". This is the factual basis of their "facts", the fact that most people beleive it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes. I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes. Nothing of the article in there itself. I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago. There has been much progress since then. If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.
:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes. I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes. Nothing of the article in there itself. I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago. There has been much progress since then. If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.