Episode 159 - A Proposal for the Geologic Definition of "Planet," Interview with Kirby Runyon
Recap: In 2006, the International Astronomical Union sparked an uproar and furious debate among scientists and non-scientists alike when they voted for a definition of the word, planet. Numerous proposals since that time have been made for the definition of that term. Eleven years later, a new proposal has gotten a lot of media attention and in this episode, we discuss that new proposed definition. This is closer to a friendly debate style because the host of this podcast and the guest have different points of view on this issue.
- Relevant Posts on my "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Blog
Bio of Guest, Kirby Runyon: Kirby Runyon is a graduating PhD candidate in planetary geology at Johns Hopkins University where he researches wind-blown geology on Mars and impact cratering on planets such as the Moon. He is a science team affiliate on the New Horizons mission to the double planet Pluto-Charon and the Kuiper Belt and is passionate about engaging the general public in the passion, beauty, and joy of space exploration and promoting scientific literacy among non-scientists.
As this was a live recording with a guest, there is no specific transcript. Topics discussed include:
- You've been in the news a lot due to an abstract you wrote for the upcoming Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. What's going on?
- There's been a lot of news coverage of this. Do you think it's fairly represented your position?
- What is your position on the issue, and why?
- The bulk of the episode was a free-flowing discussion about the implications of the definition and how useful or unuseful it may be. The host (Robbins) is on the side that this is not that useful, but the IAU definition is not useful either. The guest (Runyon) is advocating for his new definition.
Provide Your Comments:
Comments to date: 2. Page 1 of 1. Average Rating:
3:53am on Sunday, March 26th, 2017
Jason Goemaat Iowa
8:19am on Thursday, March 23rd, 2017
So frustrating... Why go against 2,000 years of history to redefine a word because you prefer to define a planet by its intrinsic properties? The term has been used since 1630 from where I read to refer to orbitting a star. I would rather call every asteroid and comet in the solar system a planet before calling the largest moon one. Following his logic you need to start calling anything smaller than a planet either an asteroid or a comet depending on its composition too.