Sign in with Facebook
Porter Broyles's Reviews > The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet
The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet
by
by
deGrasse Tyson’s job is to explain things to the masses. To this extent his work is, by design, somewhat fluff and superficial. There is nothing wrong if that is you purpose. He has a fun personality that comes across in his writing.
That being said:
While defending the IAU’s vote, he wrote:
On “the surface, this argument sounds convincing, but most pollsters would give their eyeteeth for their sample to represent 4 percent of a complete population. So the question should be, What are the chances that the vote would be substantially different if you polled all the world’s astrophysicists? It turns out, if you do the math, that the votes margin of uncertainty is less than 3 percent […] The calculation assumes that the 424 scientist are a random sample. There is no reason to presume otherwise, except that people who favor Pluto’s planethood typically exhibit more energy for their cause than Pluto demoters exhibit for theirs.”
Sorry. The people who attend the IAU’s international conference are NOT random nor a statistically valid representative. The people who attend that conference are most likely:
1) from the larger more prestigious universities, planetariums, and organizations. The organizations that can afford to send their representatives to an international conference (or pay them enough that they can afford to go on their own).
2) The higher ranking more experienced members of these universities, planetariums, and organizations.
3) Mostly from Europe as the conference was help in Prague. (Professional conventions will have a disproportionate number of people who are local vs from other contries/continents.)
These factors are not “random”. To state that “there is no reason to presume” that it isn’t a statistically valid sample displays an appalling lack of understanding of statistics, a blatant attempt to mislead, or an insult to his audience.
A much more convincing argument would be that the people who attended the conference are the leaders in their field at the leading astronomical institutions and that the IAU is the organization responsible for defining astronomical nomenclature. Nor would have I have a problem with the notion that a 90% margin from the “vote” really represents a consensus, but that the “vote” was performed to help sell the idea to the public. But to pretend that the voting body was statistically valid? No.
That being said, this is simple read with some good information.
Still a fun book.
That being said:
While defending the IAU’s vote, he wrote:
On “the surface, this argument sounds convincing, but most pollsters would give their eyeteeth for their sample to represent 4 percent of a complete population. So the question should be, What are the chances that the vote would be substantially different if you polled all the world’s astrophysicists? It turns out, if you do the math, that the votes margin of uncertainty is less than 3 percent […] The calculation assumes that the 424 scientist are a random sample. There is no reason to presume otherwise, except that people who favor Pluto’s planethood typically exhibit more energy for their cause than Pluto demoters exhibit for theirs.”
Sorry. The people who attend the IAU’s international conference are NOT random nor a statistically valid representative. The people who attend that conference are most likely:
1) from the larger more prestigious universities, planetariums, and organizations. The organizations that can afford to send their representatives to an international conference (or pay them enough that they can afford to go on their own).
2) The higher ranking more experienced members of these universities, planetariums, and organizations.
3) Mostly from Europe as the conference was help in Prague. (Professional conventions will have a disproportionate number of people who are local vs from other contries/continents.)
These factors are not “random”. To state that “there is no reason to presume” that it isn’t a statistically valid sample displays an appalling lack of understanding of statistics, a blatant attempt to mislead, or an insult to his audience.
A much more convincing argument would be that the people who attended the conference are the leaders in their field at the leading astronomical institutions and that the IAU is the organization responsible for defining astronomical nomenclature. Nor would have I have a problem with the notion that a 90% margin from the “vote” really represents a consensus, but that the “vote” was performed to help sell the idea to the public. But to pretend that the voting body was statistically valid? No.
That being said, this is simple read with some good information.
Still a fun book.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Pluto Files.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
August 24, 2019
–
Started Reading
August 24, 2019
– Shelved
August 24, 2019
–
25.0%
"Neil deGrasse Tyson writes for the lowest common demoninator. His target is not astronomers or people interested in astronomy, but rather the masses. His name is just as much (if not more) the selling point---which is why it is larger and more visible than the title.
It's a short book with lots of big print and pictures.
It is what it is. A simple book that is accessible to anybody."
It's a short book with lots of big print and pictures.
It is what it is. A simple book that is accessible to anybody."
August 29, 2019
–
75.0%
"So far the book is pure Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Not very deep. Intended to convey thoughts to the average person and somewhat entertaining.
There is, however, some gloating."
Not very deep. Intended to convey thoughts to the average person and somewhat entertaining.
There is, however, some gloating."
August 29, 2019
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-1 of 1 (1 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Philip
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
May 03, 2020 04:56AM
Love the fact that scientific thinking continues to evolve. For many people/scientists, Pluto is now BACK on the list as one of the new category of "dwarf planets," which also includes Eris, Haumea, and Makemake in the Kuiper belt and Ceres in the asteroid belt, and which bring the total to 13! Nor saying that I agree, but it's just fascinating that we are in a new are of astronomical discovery.
reply
|
flag
