Grant

I'll take the other position in this argument:

Sometimes, tradition is necessary in a field dictated by laws, classification, and analysis. From its discovery in 1930 to its declassification in 2006, Pluto was considered a planet. It was a part of the Original 9, a staple of astrologic knowledge for millions upon millions of kindergarteners. In order to prevent our civilization from almost certain collapse, we must reinstate Pluto's Planetary Status. Thank you.

But, all future "discoveries" must be judged by the proper criteria.

Grant

Victoria

I feel its necessary to classify Pluto as a dwarf planet despite tradition. According to new findings in science it no longer falls under the modern classification of a planet. I don't believe you should stick to a certain way of thinking just for the sake of tradition. Sure tradition is important but there's a certain point where people need to think about why they're sticking to it. Just because you were taught to believe a certain way all your life doesn't mean you're views are permanent and not subject to change. Its better to change your views than continue living a lie.

I don't think Pluto should be classified as a planet. If it doesn't meet the criteria then it's not a dubbed 'Planet'. If Price Charles was in a coma would you let him be King? No, he doesn't have the qualfications to rule. Science trumps tradition.

Kenny

Although tradition makes me want to say that we should put Pluto back into the "planet classification", science, I feel, takes precedence. We did not have the technology we have today back when we decided who was a planet and who wasn't. From what I have read it almost seemed like that if it was pretty big, and it went around the sun it was a planet. Now that we can observe many more bodies out in space that orbit our sun, and with the given example of Eris that is larger than Pluto, we would have to be all inclusive and include Eris as well, or keep the classification as is. Plus, we wouldn't want our kids to have to memorize many more planets than necessary right?

Question

In 2006 Pluto was announced to be a dwarf planet because it did not meet the proper criteria for being a planet. International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that in the Solar System a planet is a celestial body that:
1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.
Since Pluto does not meet the 3rd planet requirement it was deemed a dwarf planet. Since then the IAU has discovered a new and larger dwarf planet named Eris. Do you feel that it is necessary to classify Pluto as a dwarf planet for sake of science? OR Should we reclassify it as a planet for the sake of tradition? Please explain answer thoroughly and choose one definitive side.