this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
523 points (95.8% liked)
Science Memes
18359 readers
1273 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They look way more badass with feathers.
It’s time to grow up and accept the truth
Anyone who complains about this are the same people who whinged about the change of Pluto's status as a planet.
In that, they are clinging to nostalgia instead of embracing a new, wondrous truth. Feathers and fur on dinosaurs shows an entirely new way of imagining the world before us, just like Pluto's downgrade was simply because we found potentially thousands of more Pluto's.
I think a lot of people broadly are insecure about change right now. Stability feels precious, and this nostalgic retreat is being leveraged by anti-science groups.
Pluto actually got a promotion to the King of the dwarf planets, rather than the least of the rocky planets.
For real though - people will insist that Pluto is a planet but not even know about Eris.
Ceres is super cool though I will always have a spot for Pluto.
Makemake is rad though, so fast it warped.
There is a fantastic array of worldlets out there. I am so excited for Lucy and getting first glimpses of worlds we've never seen like the Trojans dragged along by Jupiter. We are so fortunate to be in an age where we get to see these sights. I feel like it's easy to forget just how amazing this entire thing is, that we're seeing the surface of places beyond Earth... and so far most of them have been unique and surprising in some way.
Hey!! Don’t bash Team Pluto!!!
Pluto is a wonderful, amazing and beautiful world. I will never forget the awe I felt when I saw the first images when New Horizons blasted past it, the colors and textures and vivid landscapes and variety and hazy atmosphere layers, an utter treat, literally brought tears to my eyes that I got to see something I thought I would never see in my lifetime.
All that said, it's fine it's been reclassified, it takes nothing away from the world and the dwarf planets are ALL interesting and worth admiring.
I've also just now decided that all those spiny backed donosors? They were just dummy thicc and they needed extra spine bone to support all that cheek
Except when you actually read about the change in Pluto's status and how unscientific it actually is.
Oh? Do explain, and pretend I don't actually know a lot about planetary science.
Edit: Looked at user history and .ml suffix. I shouldn't be surprised at this kind of take, nor hold my breath for a smart answer.
The argument I've seen skips the step that the new definition was created to include those other Pluto like objects.
They jump right to how the planet definition was updated to not have overlap or ambiguity with Pluto and therefore was about creating a way to exclude Pluto rather than creating a definition that doesn't lead to declaring there are now 50 planets.
How is that unscientific though? We need to create definitions and classifications, and it makes more sense to create that definition in the simplest place possible. IE: it's simpler to consider Pluto a dwarf planet along with many, many other dwarf planets, than create a new solar-system model that has 50 more actual planets.
And lets say that we went with the 50+ planet solar-system model... what would be the delineation point there? What standard should we use to preserve that number 50? What if we find 50 more small bodies in the coming years? Where does it end?
The reclassification of Pluto made more sense than just saying we don't have a clearly defined solar system. Planetary science requires the terminology so we can say what we're looking at. Planets? Dwarf planets? Trojans? trans-neptunian objects? There is a LOT of stuff out there, we can't call it ALL planets. So where would you have drawn the line that makes it "more scientific?"
edit: sorry, i thought you were the person who first posted that this was "unscientific," but the argument stands.
I'm not saying I agree with it, only trying to describe the logical leaps that get people there.
I don't think the original user I was asking actually has logical steps as much as a desperate need to get negative attention online, but thank you for the good faith attempt.
Oh gods who forgot to take pluto in to get them neutered
It's because the definition includes things that aren't really about the object itself and more about where it is. And also how inconsistent it is, as Mercury isn't in hydrostatic equilibrium and yet is explicitly included as a planet by the IAU. Nevermind the fact that the new definition was speed voted and approved by less than 400 astronomers in a convention where 2500+ people attended, let alone not even being discussed with the larger scientific community.
But hey, if you'd rather dismiss my points because of an url, you do you. Not like this changes our everyday live anyway.
Okay you googled what classifies a planet and saw the line about mercury, I am familiar but not sure how that makes any of this "unscientific." Mercury mostly fits the criteria, pluto definitely does not.
I'm just confused how anyone has a problem with this, nothing is perfect, nothing has hard boundaries but we have to draw lines somewhere or we have solar system models where when we say "planet" we include 90 other objects that are very far removed from each other, besides being "somewhat roundish."
I'm perfectly fine with 400 astronomers deciding to draw a line somewhere, they're ones doing the goddamn work. I'm sure there's a share of people seeking attention pretending to be outraged, but why give those voices power? If you're an astronomer doing planetary science, you need to define different kinds of bodies, they're not doing it to make people comfortable, and it shouldn't make you uncomfortable, if it does that's really, really weird. From the outside it screams some kind of issues with authority.
Yes, you are right it changes nothing in how we live, so I'm baffled why there's always one out a hundred people just angry that people doing science changed something in the way they do work.
The problem is that the current definition makes no sense and is, frankly, bad.
400 people, for a huge scientific community like astronomy, is bad. Heck even if they were literally all the astronomers in the world, the fact that it was proposed and voted on basically the same day should be noteworthy at the very least.
And no one here is angry. I was just pointing out that name calling for no reason doesn't really add to the discussion, even a low stakes one like this.
You haven't said why though, I have received zero good arguments why reclassifying a ball of ice and rock that crosses other planetary orbits harms science, it's a dumb hill to even point at, much less die on.
Who stands to gain from Pluto not being a planet?
Jews.
Obviously.
/s?
Really? I need to clarify that I dont actually believe the Jews have a controlling interest in Neptune? Do some research man!
Have... Have you not seen the internet the past few years? You can't assume sarcasm by this point
It's about keeping the solar system small and simple. There would be tens of planets, in the old definition.
Agreed. It always irked me that the ancestors of birds look more like lizards than birds, when the ancestors of crocodiles looked pretty much the same.