2006-06-25 05:04:03 · 6 answers · asked by Nobody 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Yes. Granted, its makeup is unusual, but if we are to accept the principle of evolution as applied to cosmology, we must have minds sufficiently open to recognize that traditional definitions attempting to constrain identification and classification of stellar bodies are probably imperfect.
The great flaw among scientists claiming Pluto is not a planet arises not from issue concerning their scientific methodology nearly so much as it comes from their hubris towards and contempt for the underlying philosophical principles of science.
To claim today that Pluto cannot be a planet is akin to having stated with absolute certainty in 1944 that the atom could never be split outside the theoretical imaginations of "junk science."
2006-06-25 06:49:48 · answer #1 · answered by wireflight 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
i think thats it's just one of the kepler belt mass
and what does life on jupiter have to do with anything to do with Pluto being a planet?
2006-06-25 13:19:50 · answer #2 · answered by Rajan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought Pluto was a dog?
2006-06-27 11:31:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a fierce debate on this issue goiing on among experts. Its all relative, for example if there were life on Jupiter, would they call Earth a planet ?????
2006-06-25 12:08:42 · answer #4 · answered by ag_iitkgp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but more out of tradition than rigorous scientific standards.
Do you consider Sedna and that other distant planetoid, planets?
2006-06-25 12:07:45 · answer #5 · answered by poorcocoboiboi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes ,unless of course you're talking about Mickey's friend.
2006-06-25 12:09:27 · answer #6 · answered by fdrsnail 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋