What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Pluto: How a Little Planet Made a Big Difference
In support of Pluto-the cutest and most unfairly treated planet Pity poor It's a planet that was discovered because of a mistake, a planet that turned out not to be a planet at all, thanks to a still-disputed decision made in 2006. And yet, Pluto is the planet best-loved by Americans, especially children, one that may have contained the building blocks of life billions of years ago and may well serve as life's last redoubt billions of years from now. In The Case for Pluto , award-winning science writer Alan Boyle traces the tiny planet's ups and downs, its strange appeal, the reasons behind its demotion, and the reasons why it should be set back in the planetary pantheon.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published September 24, 2009
6 people are currently reading
82 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
February 27, 2010
After reading The Pluto Files a couple weeks ago and posting about it, I got a comment from a ubiquitous blogger who's on the "pluto IS a planet" side of things. Her blog recommends The Case for Pluto as an explanation of why Pluto should be called a planet, so in the interest of due dilligence, I read that too.
Boyle gives a more thorough discussion of the two conflicting viewpoints about the word planet, and gives a more balanced discussion of why the IAU decision was so thoroughly disputed. I'll discuss that bit below, but first a couple tidbits from Boyle's book that I enjoyed:
* The guy who named Pluto's moon wanted to name it after his wife, Charlene, so he decided to take the first syllable of her name and add the suffix -on to be similar to proton or neutron. When the committee on naming things told him he had to name it after a god, he was bummed. But then he discovered that the ferryman across the river Styx was named Charon. In Greek, it's pronounced "Care - on" but apparently astronomers use the pronunciation "Share - on" to reflect the original intent.
* One of the first people to raise the "should Pluto be a planet" question did so at the 50th anniversary of Pluto's discovery, in front of Tombaugh and his family. Gaff!
* In the next few years, we expect to find many pluto-sized bodies (or bigger) in the Kuiper belt. There will probably be some as big as Mars.
The whole things turns out to be a narrow window of semantics that gets spliced onto a question of common concern for regular people. Here's how it breaks down:
Planetary scientists generally think anything big enough to be rounded by its own gravity and small enough not to have fusion at its core should be a "planet." Then, they suggest that we should have a series of adjectives that describe what kind of planet we're talking about: rocky dwarf planet (Ceres), ice dwarf planet (Pluto, Eris, et al), rocky planet (Mercury-Mars), Gas giant planet (Jupiter, Saturn) and Ice giant planet (Uranus and Neptune), with more to be added as needed. The distinction here is that all rounded objects would be planets.
Dynamicists are scientists more interested in the way bodies influence one another through gravity and so on. For example, Neptune was discovered because the gravitational mathematics said there should be a big planet somewhere in that neighborhood. To this layperson, such calculations seem unreliable, as other predictions have failed to turn up similar discoveries. (At one point, there was thought to be a planet called vulcan inside Mercury's orbit.) Dynamicists prefer the IAU designation because it defines planet as something that has "cleared its neighborhood" of bodies, like the classic 8, while something that hasn't cleared the neighborhood would be a dwarf planet. "But not a REAL planet."
As I said, to the layperson this seems like a pretty minor difference, as both are using multiple sets of criteria, while the IAU version puts "planet" above "dwarf planet." Where the extra tension comes from, for me, is the public complaint about Pluto's being 'demoted' to dwarf planet. I think the ruckus in the public sphere has to do with the change from the "original 9" to a different definition. When people learn that having Pluto be a planet means that we will also have four more right now, plus dozens to come in future years, I think they'll be equally irritated with the change. In other words, there are two groups complaining about Pluto not being a planet anymore. One group of scientists have a legitimate beef and want all the rounded objects to be recongized as planets. But the citizenry, who appear to be on the side of these scientists, are really in favor of keeping the old order intact. They don't just want Pluto to be a planet, they want there only to be nine planets.
So I guess I'm convinced that any rounded object should be called a planet. But I'm also convinced that given our current information, it's not appropriate to put Pluto in the special category it's been in for all these years (as one of nine). Thus, the decision Tyson made in The Pluto Files was right on -- Pluto is better represented as part of the Kuiper Belt objects. A "planet," yes, but one of a group separate from the other eight (who are, in fact, two or three different groups themselves).
Boyle gives a more thorough discussion of the two conflicting viewpoints about the word planet, and gives a more balanced discussion of why the IAU decision was so thoroughly disputed. I'll discuss that bit below, but first a couple tidbits from Boyle's book that I enjoyed:
* The guy who named Pluto's moon wanted to name it after his wife, Charlene, so he decided to take the first syllable of her name and add the suffix -on to be similar to proton or neutron. When the committee on naming things told him he had to name it after a god, he was bummed. But then he discovered that the ferryman across the river Styx was named Charon. In Greek, it's pronounced "Care - on" but apparently astronomers use the pronunciation "Share - on" to reflect the original intent.
* One of the first people to raise the "should Pluto be a planet" question did so at the 50th anniversary of Pluto's discovery, in front of Tombaugh and his family. Gaff!
* In the next few years, we expect to find many pluto-sized bodies (or bigger) in the Kuiper belt. There will probably be some as big as Mars.
The whole things turns out to be a narrow window of semantics that gets spliced onto a question of common concern for regular people. Here's how it breaks down:
Planetary scientists generally think anything big enough to be rounded by its own gravity and small enough not to have fusion at its core should be a "planet." Then, they suggest that we should have a series of adjectives that describe what kind of planet we're talking about: rocky dwarf planet (Ceres), ice dwarf planet (Pluto, Eris, et al), rocky planet (Mercury-Mars), Gas giant planet (Jupiter, Saturn) and Ice giant planet (Uranus and Neptune), with more to be added as needed. The distinction here is that all rounded objects would be planets.
Dynamicists are scientists more interested in the way bodies influence one another through gravity and so on. For example, Neptune was discovered because the gravitational mathematics said there should be a big planet somewhere in that neighborhood. To this layperson, such calculations seem unreliable, as other predictions have failed to turn up similar discoveries. (At one point, there was thought to be a planet called vulcan inside Mercury's orbit.) Dynamicists prefer the IAU designation because it defines planet as something that has "cleared its neighborhood" of bodies, like the classic 8, while something that hasn't cleared the neighborhood would be a dwarf planet. "But not a REAL planet."
As I said, to the layperson this seems like a pretty minor difference, as both are using multiple sets of criteria, while the IAU version puts "planet" above "dwarf planet." Where the extra tension comes from, for me, is the public complaint about Pluto's being 'demoted' to dwarf planet. I think the ruckus in the public sphere has to do with the change from the "original 9" to a different definition. When people learn that having Pluto be a planet means that we will also have four more right now, plus dozens to come in future years, I think they'll be equally irritated with the change. In other words, there are two groups complaining about Pluto not being a planet anymore. One group of scientists have a legitimate beef and want all the rounded objects to be recongized as planets. But the citizenry, who appear to be on the side of these scientists, are really in favor of keeping the old order intact. They don't just want Pluto to be a planet, they want there only to be nine planets.
So I guess I'm convinced that any rounded object should be called a planet. But I'm also convinced that given our current information, it's not appropriate to put Pluto in the special category it's been in for all these years (as one of nine). Thus, the decision Tyson made in The Pluto Files was right on -- Pluto is better represented as part of the Kuiper Belt objects. A "planet," yes, but one of a group separate from the other eight (who are, in fact, two or three different groups themselves).
December 16, 2009
In the outer reaches of our solar system, a little ball of rock and ice orbits the sun about once every 250 years. We know it as Pluto. It's been called the planet best-loved by Americans, a favorite of school children, a cultural object, and even more passionately, a cosmic underdog and an endearing little planet. In The Case for Pluto, Alan Boyle explores the curious emotional appeal of Pluto and the weird debate over whether or not it's a planet. That's the fun part.
But The Case For Pluto is more than just a fun look at Pluto's "demotion." It's also a serious look at how scientists view the solar system and their struggles to define what a planet is. Probably few people who aren't astronomers have spent much time pondering the definition of a planet, but how to decide whether a faintly seen object billions of miles away is a planet or not has proved to be a particularly thorny subject for astonomers. This book explains why, and explains why Pluto plays a central role in that debate.
Once the solar system seemed so simple and so settled. Nine worlds revolving around the sun, the last and smallest one, Pluto, discovered just 70 years ago. Pluto was always a bit of an oddball, so far away, and so small compared to the other planets. Then, with better telescopes and technology, scientists began to discover other objects orbiting the sun, finally finding one even larger than Pluto. This brought into question whether or not the planetary scheme should be revamped. If Pluto was a planet, then werent' a lot of these other similar little rock and ice balls orbiting the sun in the outer solar system also planets? What does it mean to be a planet -- how do they form, what does the formation of planets, and planet like objects tell us about the possibility of planets existing around other stars? Those questions have significance for worlds beyond Pluto.
As Boyle puts it, "The case for Pluto isn't just about one picked-upon planet. On one level, the case is a class-action suit -- affecting the status of other worlds in our solar system, and potentially thousands of worlds beyond. On a deeper level, it's case study that shows how politics and personalities can affect the scientific process and how the scientific process can in turn affect popular culture."
The Case for Pluto is an entertaining blend of humor, pop culture and serious science. It's the best and most intelligent treatment I've seen of the great Pluto debate.
But The Case For Pluto is more than just a fun look at Pluto's "demotion." It's also a serious look at how scientists view the solar system and their struggles to define what a planet is. Probably few people who aren't astronomers have spent much time pondering the definition of a planet, but how to decide whether a faintly seen object billions of miles away is a planet or not has proved to be a particularly thorny subject for astonomers. This book explains why, and explains why Pluto plays a central role in that debate.
Once the solar system seemed so simple and so settled. Nine worlds revolving around the sun, the last and smallest one, Pluto, discovered just 70 years ago. Pluto was always a bit of an oddball, so far away, and so small compared to the other planets. Then, with better telescopes and technology, scientists began to discover other objects orbiting the sun, finally finding one even larger than Pluto. This brought into question whether or not the planetary scheme should be revamped. If Pluto was a planet, then werent' a lot of these other similar little rock and ice balls orbiting the sun in the outer solar system also planets? What does it mean to be a planet -- how do they form, what does the formation of planets, and planet like objects tell us about the possibility of planets existing around other stars? Those questions have significance for worlds beyond Pluto.
As Boyle puts it, "The case for Pluto isn't just about one picked-upon planet. On one level, the case is a class-action suit -- affecting the status of other worlds in our solar system, and potentially thousands of worlds beyond. On a deeper level, it's case study that shows how politics and personalities can affect the scientific process and how the scientific process can in turn affect popular culture."
The Case for Pluto is an entertaining blend of humor, pop culture and serious science. It's the best and most intelligent treatment I've seen of the great Pluto debate.
August 30, 2010
Despite this book's title, it's not so much about the merits of Pluto to be considered a planet as it is an indictment of the IAU for being a collection of short-sighted children with pet projects to sell.
Tombaugh discovered Pluto so of course his wife wants it to be considered a planet. And, sorry, but "Kids love that little planet!" is not a cogent argument to throw reasonable classification of celestial bodies out the window. Kids are dumb.
Intrinsic brightness and hydrostatic equilibrium are reasonable tests and I'm still not sure why this view hasn't prevailed. Why is it so difficult to just decide and stick with it?
The reality of gravitation is that two things always orbit each other! The Earth DOES orbit the Moon and both are bright and round so why can't we call both a planet? The Pluto-Charon "binary-planetary system" is exactly the same as the Earth-Moon system They're just closer in mass so their orbits are exaggerated.
Oh, too many planets makes too much shit for kids to remember? Those goddamned kids again?! I think it's actually jaded or lazy teachers that don't want to find better ways to teach about the dynamic nature and spectacular variety of the solar system. They're comfortable with 9 (or 8) planets, which is the only reason the IAU ever had a problem.
Sure, 32 names are harder to remember (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Luna, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus, Uranus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Charon, Haumea, Makemake and Eris) but why take the easy way out?
How about a helpful mnemonic with all 32 hydrostatic bodies to teach the children of tomorrow?
I'm Exceedingly Upset, Nay Hysterical, That So Very Many Reputable Teachers, Enlightened Thinkers, And Eager Curriculum Makers Categorically Decided To Impetuously Lampoon, Maybe Even Maraude, Generations Of Poor Unwitting Children Just Like Me.
Tombaugh discovered Pluto so of course his wife wants it to be considered a planet. And, sorry, but "Kids love that little planet!" is not a cogent argument to throw reasonable classification of celestial bodies out the window. Kids are dumb.
Intrinsic brightness and hydrostatic equilibrium are reasonable tests and I'm still not sure why this view hasn't prevailed. Why is it so difficult to just decide and stick with it?
The reality of gravitation is that two things always orbit each other! The Earth DOES orbit the Moon and both are bright and round so why can't we call both a planet? The Pluto-Charon "binary-planetary system" is exactly the same as the Earth-Moon system They're just closer in mass so their orbits are exaggerated.
Oh, too many planets makes too much shit for kids to remember? Those goddamned kids again?! I think it's actually jaded or lazy teachers that don't want to find better ways to teach about the dynamic nature and spectacular variety of the solar system. They're comfortable with 9 (or 8) planets, which is the only reason the IAU ever had a problem.
Sure, 32 names are harder to remember (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Luna, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus, Uranus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Charon, Haumea, Makemake and Eris) but why take the easy way out?
How about a helpful mnemonic with all 32 hydrostatic bodies to teach the children of tomorrow?
I'm Exceedingly Upset, Nay Hysterical, That So Very Many Reputable Teachers, Enlightened Thinkers, And Eager Curriculum Makers Categorically Decided To Impetuously Lampoon, Maybe Even Maraude, Generations Of Poor Unwitting Children Just Like Me.
October 15, 2018
This amazing little book clearly shows both sides of the debate over Pluto's planethood. I understand why it was demoted, but I also understand why some scientists disagree with the IAU's ruling. I am not a scientist, but luckily Boyle does a fantastic job of describing the issues in a clear and highly readable fashion. I learned not just about Pluto, but about the other planets in our system and beyond, the history of astronomy, and the scientific process as it shaped our understanding of the universe. Best of all, Boyle shares some of the human interest stories behind the big discoveries—from the little girl who came up with the name "Pluto" to the astronomers who mispronounce Charon's name on purpose. This book is clear, concise, informative, and a lot of fun. And as science and technology continue to advance, I can't wait to see what we learn next.
March 19, 2025
Book Summary
This book is meant to touch on the history of Pluto from discovery to the debate over its classification to the inevitable demotion by the International Astronomical Union, while mentioning a selection of efforts around the globe to inspire governments and the public alike to fund deeper research into the planet's origins and current state.
Positive Notes:
- It provides moderately insightful information on Pluto and the history it has had within the astronomical community since its discovery.
Negative Notes
- For a book attempting to discuss and debate the planetary categorization of a celestial body, it is odd how often children are brought up as an argument for keeping Pluto classed as a planet. The book is written using relatively complex ideas including dynamics, spectrographs, scientific debate, yet the author continuously falls back to phrasing along the lines of “Pluto should remain a planet as that’s what is easiest and best for children”. Is this book for adults, or for elementary schoolers who are so pivotal to the authors argument? Really, you'd think that this review is joking, however, they are a continuous theme all the way to the end of the text. I cannot understand why the most common talking point throughout the book is the opinions of our youth. This isn't to say that their opinions and feelings are irrelevant, because as one of the children who was brought up with Pluto being a "planet", I too was shocked by the findings of the IAU. But, with time came a deeper understanding of both sides of the metaphorical "horizon" of the argument, and the dwarf-planet "hemisphere" wins out.
- It is somewhat difficult to take seriously when the author is quoting pop-culture references from sports columnists, late night talk show hosts, or elaborating on equivalencies that don’t appear to have any reasonable comparison to the argument as to why Pluto should remain a planet.
- There exists a section of the book spanning a handful of pages where the author attempted to provide visual aids which attempt to show aspects of Pluto or its history. I say “attempted” because it is my opinion that a book rooted in debate over a topic should be empirical, factual, and void of text, images, or sources that are artistic in nature. That is not to say images cannot supplement the material, but the images should not be artistic renderings opposed to genuine captures. Yes, this book was written in 2010, before the arrival of the New Horizons craft meant to study the planet, yes some of the images are from the Hubble or ground based telescopes, but dispersed between the real are man-made 3D model renders attempting to depict what the planet COULD be like. I give credit to the author for explicitly stating which images are imaginative in nature, but the moment artistic style creeps its way into an image or system, physical and empirical integrity is lost.
- The book includes facts in some instances that while true, have no place in the context in which they’re mentioned. For example, in chapter 9 “The Battle of Prague”, where the author is sharing an opinion, the text reads “some of the most interesting worlds nowadays aren’t planets, but moons. The Saturnian moon Enceladus is just 300 miles wide, far smaller than Pluto’s diameter of 1,430 miles, ...” The message doesn’t make much sense in attempting to classify Pluto and reads more akin to standing atop a soap box to proclaim to anyone within earshot that your left foot is smaller than your right, but that doesn’t make the left foot any less interesting. It is an opinion that likely should have been kept out of the material entirely.
Final Verdict
I cannot in conscious mind recommend this book, unless an emotionally charged, childish outcry over an established Kuiper Belt object’s demotion is what you’re looking for. There's a reason that even 19 years after the initial decision, Pluto is still classified as a dwarf-planet, and that reason is because the numerous attempts to reinstate the initial planetary statehood of the cold, distant, icy rock that is Pluto have failed.
I encourage all to go into the book with an open mind and take note of what page you reach when you turn against the author simply because of how poorly worded, how inadequately defended, and how mis-managed the argument upon the entire premise of the book is based. Take it a step further and predict the page number before you’ve read it, then compare that estimate to the measured value after finishing the text. The results may surprise you.
This book is meant to touch on the history of Pluto from discovery to the debate over its classification to the inevitable demotion by the International Astronomical Union, while mentioning a selection of efforts around the globe to inspire governments and the public alike to fund deeper research into the planet's origins and current state.
Positive Notes:
- It provides moderately insightful information on Pluto and the history it has had within the astronomical community since its discovery.
Negative Notes
- For a book attempting to discuss and debate the planetary categorization of a celestial body, it is odd how often children are brought up as an argument for keeping Pluto classed as a planet. The book is written using relatively complex ideas including dynamics, spectrographs, scientific debate, yet the author continuously falls back to phrasing along the lines of “Pluto should remain a planet as that’s what is easiest and best for children”. Is this book for adults, or for elementary schoolers who are so pivotal to the authors argument? Really, you'd think that this review is joking, however, they are a continuous theme all the way to the end of the text. I cannot understand why the most common talking point throughout the book is the opinions of our youth. This isn't to say that their opinions and feelings are irrelevant, because as one of the children who was brought up with Pluto being a "planet", I too was shocked by the findings of the IAU. But, with time came a deeper understanding of both sides of the metaphorical "horizon" of the argument, and the dwarf-planet "hemisphere" wins out.
- It is somewhat difficult to take seriously when the author is quoting pop-culture references from sports columnists, late night talk show hosts, or elaborating on equivalencies that don’t appear to have any reasonable comparison to the argument as to why Pluto should remain a planet.
- There exists a section of the book spanning a handful of pages where the author attempted to provide visual aids which attempt to show aspects of Pluto or its history. I say “attempted” because it is my opinion that a book rooted in debate over a topic should be empirical, factual, and void of text, images, or sources that are artistic in nature. That is not to say images cannot supplement the material, but the images should not be artistic renderings opposed to genuine captures. Yes, this book was written in 2010, before the arrival of the New Horizons craft meant to study the planet, yes some of the images are from the Hubble or ground based telescopes, but dispersed between the real are man-made 3D model renders attempting to depict what the planet COULD be like. I give credit to the author for explicitly stating which images are imaginative in nature, but the moment artistic style creeps its way into an image or system, physical and empirical integrity is lost.
- The book includes facts in some instances that while true, have no place in the context in which they’re mentioned. For example, in chapter 9 “The Battle of Prague”, where the author is sharing an opinion, the text reads “some of the most interesting worlds nowadays aren’t planets, but moons. The Saturnian moon Enceladus is just 300 miles wide, far smaller than Pluto’s diameter of 1,430 miles, ...” The message doesn’t make much sense in attempting to classify Pluto and reads more akin to standing atop a soap box to proclaim to anyone within earshot that your left foot is smaller than your right, but that doesn’t make the left foot any less interesting. It is an opinion that likely should have been kept out of the material entirely.
Final Verdict
I cannot in conscious mind recommend this book, unless an emotionally charged, childish outcry over an established Kuiper Belt object’s demotion is what you’re looking for. There's a reason that even 19 years after the initial decision, Pluto is still classified as a dwarf-planet, and that reason is because the numerous attempts to reinstate the initial planetary statehood of the cold, distant, icy rock that is Pluto have failed.
I encourage all to go into the book with an open mind and take note of what page you reach when you turn against the author simply because of how poorly worded, how inadequately defended, and how mis-managed the argument upon the entire premise of the book is based. Take it a step further and predict the page number before you’ve read it, then compare that estimate to the measured value after finishing the text. The results may surprise you.
June 15, 2018
For years and years every schoolchild was taught that there are 9 planets in our solar system. It grew from 8 to 9 when in 1930 Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto (named before but epitomised by Disney as a cute little underdog). All that was to change in 2006 when the International Astronomical Union met in Prague and demoted Pluto from the planetary family. This easy to read book by Alan Boyle clearly chronicles the case for and against in a manner befitting a crime drama novel full of intrigue, political chicanery, legal wrangling and even hostility. They spent years, and the debate still goes on, arguing over the definition of what is a planet (Resolution 5A). The unsatisfactory outcome is well described reverting to 8 'classical' planets whilst Pluto together with 4 more and maybe in the future hundreds of others as 'dwarf' planets (Resolution 6A). But what is in a name explains Boyle, "they are still planets". The book was written before NASA's New Horizons probe reached Pluto in 2015. History may yet get rewritten and we could end up with schoolchildren having to remember 10, 11, 12 or even hundreds of planet's names. I love his mnemonic jingle for 11 planets- "My Very Exciting Magic Carpet Just Sailed Under Nine Palace Elephants" - look them up!!
A worthwhile read even if you are not into astronomy but just enjoy learning new things or reading about how committees try to reach agreement (just like the current Brexit negotiations I suggest)
A worthwhile read even if you are not into astronomy but just enjoy learning new things or reading about how committees try to reach agreement (just like the current Brexit negotiations I suggest)
October 10, 2019
A story can lead with a whisper and leave with a bang. That truth underscores "The Case for Pluto." This work caught me totally off-guard--- what appears plaintext and palatable is, in truth, poignant and persuasive. Astronomy buffs, Plutophiles, and science enthusiasts alike will take something unique from its pages. A thoughtful, direct retelling of Pluto's narrative, Alan Boyle takes us from Tombaugh to tomorrow, elevating the saga of Pluto, the planet that both is and isn't, to its rightful place in the planetary pantheon. Pluto is an emotional subject--- speaking personally, as a scientist and human, many elements in "The Case for Pluto" evoke vivid elation and sorrow in my soul. The magnum opus here is the narrative encapsulating the KBO revolution and ensuing Battle of Prague. From Pluto's icy being spring the questions of planethood, categorization, and the shifting tides of the scientific process. When politics and decision-by-consensus rake the astronomical realm, the worst possible cause and effect relationships can emerge.Boyle highlights the tough arguments and tackles the necessary questions with poise and bluntness. In a real way, "The Case For Pluto" advocates the crucial need to keep debate, reflection, and open minds alive in contemporary astronomy. Whether or not Pluto's modern status remains static, the icy world that inspired our own will forever remain a beacon of hope, story of triumph, and yardstick to the planets of the future.
October 28, 2024
This is a somewhat more disinterested presentation of the issues relating to Pluto and the definition and classification of planets than Mike Brown's "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming." Boyle demonstrates the inherent challenge of trying to develop a classification system based on inductive reasoning. Without some kind of absolute frame of reference with respect to the knowledge of reality, it is impossible to create a system that will satisfy not only the scientists of today but those of generations yet to come. This means that the definition and classification of planetary and stellar objects will always be subject to change.
July 31, 2015
If you've wondered why 4% of the International Astronomical Union voted to "demote" Pluto and "kick it out of the Solar System" and why the media took sides with them, something that should never be done in science but all too often is, this book will clear up that and many other questions about Pluto, the flagship of the Kuiper Belt. Not only does it discuss solid science about Pluto, but it also presents its story with "[a]ll the intrigue and passion of a political scandal." (The quote comes from K. C. Cole, author of Something Incredibly Wonderful Happens. It fits.)
The author points out that what should have happened in 2006 as a result of that ill-famed contest among astronomers was the drafting of a compromise that would have satisfied both "sides" -- planetary scientists via dynamicists and those scientists specializing in celestial mechanics. The dynamicists wanted an emphasis on the influence which heavenly bodies have on one another (thus their stipulation that a planet must "clear its orbit" -- sweep out all other materials in its orbit, something that none of the "legitimate planets have done) while the planetary scientists wanted to use time-honored criteria for declaring that something is a planet (rounded by its own gravity, i.e., being in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium; orbiting a star and not another planet, etc.). A compromise satisfying the elements of both positions should and could have been worked out on a truly scientific basis.
Instead, the then-President of the IAU and her hand-picked IAU members decided it was a war against the planetary scientists, and they voted accordingly. And though most astronomers were really not satisfied with the outcome -- the dynamicists "won" by means of a secret vote to which 96% of the IAU were NOT invited, hardly a true win -- somehow the media got it into their collective head that science is done by voting, not by the scientific method, and they ignored the fact that the vote itself was a rigged vote that had little to do with what most of the membership of the IAU believed. So, true to their motto of "if it bleeds, it leads," they trumpeted the "death" of Pluto and its "ejection" from the Solar System and didn't bother to interview various astronomers or even scientists in other disciplines to learn how science is actually done (hint: it's not by vote -- physicists did not vote on how big the Planck length is, nor the actual mass of the Sun, nor did paleontologists vote on whether dinosaurs existed or not).
Worse, they copied the attitude some scientists have of looking down their noses at laymen, assuming they are stupid and backward, and "sided" with astronomers who do regard laymen that way. The public, which had known Pluto is a planet for some three-quarters of a century, did not receive this sort of treatment well at all, and with that, the fight was on!
But Alan Stern, the head of the New Horizons project which reached its magnificently successful culmination on July 14, 2015, said well before New Horizons arrived at Pluto, what we are now discovering about Pluto is so fascinating that most people are going to drop the entire argument on its head and neglect to call an ambulance for it. From Tombaugh Regio, the gorgeous heart-shaped region, like a valentine from God, that has just been named after the late astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, to the large, dark area known as The Whale, and all the other places on this mysterious little world's surface, Pluto is stunning in its hadeology (= Hades geography) and the implications of what the New Horizons team is learning about Pluto now as the information from the probe returns to Earth.
Pluto, the little planet that could, and the home of Hades and Persephone, judges of the dead, is up front forever in our minds, never to be "demoted" or "killed" (astronomer Mike Brown's term for it) again.
The author points out that what should have happened in 2006 as a result of that ill-famed contest among astronomers was the drafting of a compromise that would have satisfied both "sides" -- planetary scientists via dynamicists and those scientists specializing in celestial mechanics. The dynamicists wanted an emphasis on the influence which heavenly bodies have on one another (thus their stipulation that a planet must "clear its orbit" -- sweep out all other materials in its orbit, something that none of the "legitimate planets have done) while the planetary scientists wanted to use time-honored criteria for declaring that something is a planet (rounded by its own gravity, i.e., being in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium; orbiting a star and not another planet, etc.). A compromise satisfying the elements of both positions should and could have been worked out on a truly scientific basis.
Instead, the then-President of the IAU and her hand-picked IAU members decided it was a war against the planetary scientists, and they voted accordingly. And though most astronomers were really not satisfied with the outcome -- the dynamicists "won" by means of a secret vote to which 96% of the IAU were NOT invited, hardly a true win -- somehow the media got it into their collective head that science is done by voting, not by the scientific method, and they ignored the fact that the vote itself was a rigged vote that had little to do with what most of the membership of the IAU believed. So, true to their motto of "if it bleeds, it leads," they trumpeted the "death" of Pluto and its "ejection" from the Solar System and didn't bother to interview various astronomers or even scientists in other disciplines to learn how science is actually done (hint: it's not by vote -- physicists did not vote on how big the Planck length is, nor the actual mass of the Sun, nor did paleontologists vote on whether dinosaurs existed or not).
Worse, they copied the attitude some scientists have of looking down their noses at laymen, assuming they are stupid and backward, and "sided" with astronomers who do regard laymen that way. The public, which had known Pluto is a planet for some three-quarters of a century, did not receive this sort of treatment well at all, and with that, the fight was on!
But Alan Stern, the head of the New Horizons project which reached its magnificently successful culmination on July 14, 2015, said well before New Horizons arrived at Pluto, what we are now discovering about Pluto is so fascinating that most people are going to drop the entire argument on its head and neglect to call an ambulance for it. From Tombaugh Regio, the gorgeous heart-shaped region, like a valentine from God, that has just been named after the late astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, to the large, dark area known as The Whale, and all the other places on this mysterious little world's surface, Pluto is stunning in its hadeology (= Hades geography) and the implications of what the New Horizons team is learning about Pluto now as the information from the probe returns to Earth.
Pluto, the little planet that could, and the home of Hades and Persephone, judges of the dead, is up front forever in our minds, never to be "demoted" or "killed" (astronomer Mike Brown's term for it) again.
June 7, 2015
This is a pretty darn good book explaining the controversy of "Is Pluto a planet or not?" It talks about the discovery of Pluto, other Pluto-like things (planets? not planets? dwarf planets? "dwarf-planets"? ice balls?), the International Astronomical Union's vote on the definition of "planet," the ramifications of the vote, and the search for more things (planets, Pluto-like things, comets, asteroids) in our universe and beyond.
So now that I've finished reading my "Pluto trilogy" (the three books I wanted to read about Pluto being demoted from planet status), here's how I rank them, in order of how good the book was, combined with what order they should be read in:
1. The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet by Neil deGrasse Tyson. It's a good overview of the debate, with a whole lot of pop culture thrown in (Disney, editorial cartoons, protest parades). It's nice and light, so it's a great introduction to the topic. It does have some science thrown in, but nothing scary.
2. The Case for Pluto: How a Little Planet Made a Big Difference by Alan Boyle. More in-depth than The Pluto Files, this is where you really focus on the search for Planet X, Pluto, the International Astronomical Union's vote on Pluto's status and how that affects science, the future of science, the future of investigations of space, and disagreements between scientists. I liked this book more than The Pluto Files, but The Pluto Files served as a good introduction, and a light approach to the topic. You still get everything about it, but slightly fluffier.
3. How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming by Mike Brown. This book is less about killing Pluto and more about Mike Brown's discoveries and the affects they had on Pluto. This book is a whole lot less about Pluto's demotion from planet status, and both Tyson's book and especially Boyle's book talk about Brown's discoveries, so this one is the one to miss if you only want to read two books.
So now that I've finished reading my "Pluto trilogy" (the three books I wanted to read about Pluto being demoted from planet status), here's how I rank them, in order of how good the book was, combined with what order they should be read in:
1. The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet by Neil deGrasse Tyson. It's a good overview of the debate, with a whole lot of pop culture thrown in (Disney, editorial cartoons, protest parades). It's nice and light, so it's a great introduction to the topic. It does have some science thrown in, but nothing scary.
2. The Case for Pluto: How a Little Planet Made a Big Difference by Alan Boyle. More in-depth than The Pluto Files, this is where you really focus on the search for Planet X, Pluto, the International Astronomical Union's vote on Pluto's status and how that affects science, the future of science, the future of investigations of space, and disagreements between scientists. I liked this book more than The Pluto Files, but The Pluto Files served as a good introduction, and a light approach to the topic. You still get everything about it, but slightly fluffier.
3. How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming by Mike Brown. This book is less about killing Pluto and more about Mike Brown's discoveries and the affects they had on Pluto. This book is a whole lot less about Pluto's demotion from planet status, and both Tyson's book and especially Boyle's book talk about Brown's discoveries, so this one is the one to miss if you only want to read two books.
June 24, 2015
In 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) released a resolution stating that Pluto was no longer a planet. There was a fair amount of uproar over this pronouncement, both from the public (especially schoolchildren) and many in the scientific community. Alan Boyle, the science editor for MSNBC, looks at the controversy and sorts out the arguments - why or why not Pluto should be considered a planet. He gives a bit of history of the discovery of Pluto and the other distant planets, as well as the events that precipitated this seemingly random decision.
And Boyle does an excellent job of covering the dispute and making a very interesting story out of it. There appear to be many potential planets out there, and do you include them all? But where do you draw the line, and what should be your criteria? The only time I felt my eyes glazing over was when he briefly began to get a bit technical - speaking about orbits and mass and "clearing the neighborhood" - but I found the whole story very interesting and readable for even the general public. He ends with his own case for Pluto's planethood (he predicts that the issue will have to be revisited) as well as a chapter on how parents can explain the controversy to children, since children especially seem to identify with the smallest planet with a lovable dog named after it. Also included are the texts of the IAUs resolutions and revisions, statistics on all the planets, and a number of color photos.
I for one am now looking forward to 2015 when the New Horizon spaceship visits Pluto.
And Boyle does an excellent job of covering the dispute and making a very interesting story out of it. There appear to be many potential planets out there, and do you include them all? But where do you draw the line, and what should be your criteria? The only time I felt my eyes glazing over was when he briefly began to get a bit technical - speaking about orbits and mass and "clearing the neighborhood" - but I found the whole story very interesting and readable for even the general public. He ends with his own case for Pluto's planethood (he predicts that the issue will have to be revisited) as well as a chapter on how parents can explain the controversy to children, since children especially seem to identify with the smallest planet with a lovable dog named after it. Also included are the texts of the IAUs resolutions and revisions, statistics on all the planets, and a number of color photos.
I for one am now looking forward to 2015 when the New Horizon spaceship visits Pluto.
Currently reading
February 9, 2011Too soon into it to give it a rating, but I also watched "The Pluto Files" (which was a PBS documentary) before reading this.
I tried changing my profile pic a few times to things like "Do YOU want to tell the God of the Underworld you demoted his planet?" or "Pluto, the red-headed step-child of the Solar System", but they never worked.
Do I think Pluto should be downgraded? Not a chance. Do I think the IAU needs to conduct the case of Pluto and not only the Kuiper Belt objects, but the planets that have been found outside our own system, the way most scientific processes take place: analyzing data, forming ideas, testing theories...not just raising hands and saying "There you go!"
I think most of us have a soft spot for our Underdog. I know when I first heard about Pluto, I got in trouble with my teacher because I said it was the 8th planet...I had to show her that, at that time, it was the interval that Pluto crosses Neptune's path, thereby moving into the 8th spot. I had thought that was the kewlest thing in the world. And now it turns out that it's one of the points they are using to try and downgrade it.
I tried changing my profile pic a few times to things like "Do YOU want to tell the God of the Underworld you demoted his planet?" or "Pluto, the red-headed step-child of the Solar System", but they never worked.
Do I think Pluto should be downgraded? Not a chance. Do I think the IAU needs to conduct the case of Pluto and not only the Kuiper Belt objects, but the planets that have been found outside our own system, the way most scientific processes take place: analyzing data, forming ideas, testing theories...not just raising hands and saying "There you go!"
I think most of us have a soft spot for our Underdog. I know when I first heard about Pluto, I got in trouble with my teacher because I said it was the 8th planet...I had to show her that, at that time, it was the interval that Pluto crosses Neptune's path, thereby moving into the 8th spot. I had thought that was the kewlest thing in the world. And now it turns out that it's one of the points they are using to try and downgrade it.
June 10, 2012
The Case for Pluto covers essentially the same material as The Pluto Files but in much greater depth on the personal side and a little more detail on the scientific side. I liked this book better because of that greater depth, but it was still a pretty dry read and had very few funny bits to lighten things up. The author makes two basic arguments for considering Pluto a planet. The scientific argument is that all objects with enough gravity to become round should be planets, because this is a non-arbitrary physical property. And of course the second argument is a sentimental look at Pluto’s historical significance. While the sphere argument is somewhat compelling, it does have the unfortunate problem of creating tons of planets (many asteroids and Kuiper belt objects meet this criteria, as do many moons), making planet a large enough category it’s useless without sub-categories. Although unconvinced by the main point of this book, it was an interesting read and I very much enjoyed the final chapter describing future research directions. I would recommend it to anyone just looking to learn some more facts about Pluto.
April 18, 2016
Enjoyable and well-balanced book about Pluto: its discovery, its impact on culture and science SINCE its discovery and the controversy that erupted In 2006, when the International Astronomical Union voted to demote Pluto to dwarf status.
Boyle explains that the vote was not unanimous, that there were conflicting power centers which impacted the vote, that the IAU includes few planetary scientists, anyway - and that, like all science, this decision could evolve or be overturned if future scientific findings demand it.
More important than all this, he explains why the study of Pluto has not decreased in importance and that objects like Pluto and those even further out into space, are where the action is and will be in the coming decades.
So Pluto fans: never fear. Your (dwarf) planet is still here.
As a side note, I should say that I have also read Pluto books by both Neil deGrasse Tyson and Mike Brown; this is the least dogmatic and most insightful of the three.
Boyle explains that the vote was not unanimous, that there were conflicting power centers which impacted the vote, that the IAU includes few planetary scientists, anyway - and that, like all science, this decision could evolve or be overturned if future scientific findings demand it.
More important than all this, he explains why the study of Pluto has not decreased in importance and that objects like Pluto and those even further out into space, are where the action is and will be in the coming decades.
So Pluto fans: never fear. Your (dwarf) planet is still here.
As a side note, I should say that I have also read Pluto books by both Neil deGrasse Tyson and Mike Brown; this is the least dogmatic and most insightful of the three.
August 4, 2010
A brief history of Pluto, Mr. Boyle's little gray book delivers the entire saga of the smallest "planet" in a voice that is both engaging and concise.
The Case for Pluto presents solid science, entertaining drama and healthy dash of wit, and presents the whole planetary debate in an easily digestible and entertaining package.
More than the story of our Galaxy's underdog, the book sheds a little reflected light on our scientific processes, as well as the social and political forces behind them. The Case for Pluto illustrates the depth to which our emotional attachment to what we "know or think we know" affects our understanding of the universe.
Now if we can just convince the author to continue our tour of the solar system with future titles? Perhaps the Saga of Saturn?
The Case for Pluto presents solid science, entertaining drama and healthy dash of wit, and presents the whole planetary debate in an easily digestible and entertaining package.
More than the story of our Galaxy's underdog, the book sheds a little reflected light on our scientific processes, as well as the social and political forces behind them. The Case for Pluto illustrates the depth to which our emotional attachment to what we "know or think we know" affects our understanding of the universe.
Now if we can just convince the author to continue our tour of the solar system with future titles? Perhaps the Saga of Saturn?
March 9, 2016
An excellent book for discovering exactly why Pluto (my youngest brother's favorite planet and "hometown", btw!) is no longer considered a planet. A look into the politics behind the decision and an investigation of how the scientific process works today. The book traces the history of planetary discovery, with an ending challenge to find more planets in our solar system and beyond (did you know there are actually five known planets in Pluto's new category of dwarf planet?). It relates the science involved in the whole debate without becoming difficult to follow from a layman's perspective.
The only thing I did not enjoy was the constant element of theorized evolutionary history, which I nonetheless expected, and one swear word in a quote that I found completely unnecessary.
The only thing I did not enjoy was the constant element of theorized evolutionary history, which I nonetheless expected, and one swear word in a quote that I found completely unnecessary.
July 27, 2014
This...was pretty much what it said it was going to be. The subtitle "how a little planet made a big difference" is a little twee for me, but having read the book now it sort of suits it. For better or for worse. The conversational tone veered into judgmental and (somewhat indiscriminantly) disrespectful at times, but then the book never claimed to be impartial on the subject of Pluto. It was fun, though, and presented the history of Pluto and the debate about the planetary definition in an easy to digest narrative.
June 15, 2012
Charming book, but you do have to be a Plutophile.
Although there is one ah-ha moment at the end, that makes you understand how all the naming and labeling silliness might actually be more important than you realize. Also provides hope for those of us who know this egregious injustice (labeling Pluto not a planet....as if) will soon be corrected. Like when New Horizons starts sending back his photos in Summer 2015. Stay tuned.
Although there is one ah-ha moment at the end, that makes you understand how all the naming and labeling silliness might actually be more important than you realize. Also provides hope for those of us who know this egregious injustice (labeling Pluto not a planet....as if) will soon be corrected. Like when New Horizons starts sending back his photos in Summer 2015. Stay tuned.
Read
October 17, 2015A wonderful book with historical information about the history of space discovery. The first chapters give a good background of where we were. And then going forward to where we were more recently. Has an outlook of what the future may hold. Even lists missions that are sent out and competed/completing in this year 2015. Each chapter can stand alone or be read through the book. Great for research or just for someone who wants to learn something new about space.
November 29, 2009
My uncle, born in Cascade, Iowa, is a science journalist for MSNBC in Seattle. He wrote this book and is coming for a book signing in the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area soon. I found the book easy to understand and made me a fan of astronomy! We will be going to the Eastern Iowa Observatory again soon to check out the distant stars!!
October 2, 2010
Interesting read on the argument that led to the demotion of Pluto as a planet. Also speaks of the possibility of finding other larger planets, even as large as our Earth, out past Pluto in the Kuiper Belt. You can tell the author's not happy about Pluto's plight, but hopefully with the New Horizons spacecraft mission (which reaches Pluto in 2015) astronomers will think differently.
July 1, 2012
A look into the idea of a planet and how the IAU's definition is insufficent for today's scientific world. I like how in his conclusion he points out that the term planet may have outlived its usefulness scientifically and now needs to be replaced by better divisions. Much more comprehensive in its argument of what a planet is.
August 13, 2017
Good news for Pluto fans! It's still a planet! Although no longer counted among the eight "classical" planets (Mercury through Neptune), it is the first and largest of the Kuiper belt "dwarf planets". But, just as a dwarf is still a human, albeit a small human, a dwarf PLANET is still a PLANET. So there, International Astronomical Union!
November 25, 2009
A very readable and accessible book about the discovery of the smaller planets, and the controversy that's surrounded the recent reclassification of the "dwarf planets." Kept my attention all the way through.
May 8, 2014
An interesting argument for the planethood of Pluto. I had no idea the issue was so complicated. And maybe it shouldn't be. But this book makes it seem like the demotion of Pluto was argued on grounds far more convoluted than just leaving it as was.
March 11, 2015
Interesting background of planet discoveries, but a bit biased.
April 17, 2013
Very informative and gave a good reasoning to why Pluto could be considered a planet. If not for this book, it would be much easier to dismiss this altogether as a planet.
November 10, 2014
The Great Planet Debate. Looking forward to the two NASA missions next year visiting two celestial objects that used to be called planets: Ceres and Pluto.
June 11, 2019
This presents the debate in an understandable way. Though my personal thinking is still and will always be: Pluto is still a planet.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews