On 25 Aug 2006 at 10:55, Rick Froman wrote: > I believe that the Pluto story is actually a better example of paragraph 2 > than of paragraph 1 in Marc's post. I don't think it is a good example at all > of how scientists expect change in our conclusions as data accumulates. No > new data accumulated to make this change.
Nope, don't agree. When Pluto was first designated a planet, it was thought to be much larger than it is now. It's been systematically whittled down over the years to a really tiny hunk of rock. Also, it was once thought to be unique, but an increasing number of bodies like it have now been discovered, such as Xena (wonderful name, which unfortunately is only temporary), and Xena turns out to be larger than Pluto. That's all new data, which had an important influence on the decision to boot Pluto (or else admit too many others into the club). So, all your base is belong to us. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 0C8 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
