The argument that Pluto would be a planet if it were in a different orbital track is pretty disingenuous, because in a different orbital track it might also be a moon of Jupiter or just flung out into interstellar space.
I think the argument was more of proposing that the definition of its own orbital track is not informative of anything of the body itself but instead only of what is surrounding the object. The argument seems to be an extension of the planetary scientist school of thought (definition of planet should describe planet) vs the astronomical side (name describes motion/in relation to its surroundings)
The argument that Pluto would be a planet if it were in a different orbital track is pretty disingenuous, because in a different orbital track it might also be a moon of Jupiter or just flung out into interstellar space.
I think the argument was more of proposing that the definition of its own orbital track is not informative of anything of the body itself but instead only of what is surrounding the object. The argument seems to be an extension of the planetary scientist school of thought (definition of planet should describe planet) vs the astronomical side (name describes motion/in relation to its surroundings)
Yeah, and if my grandma had a weener, she’d have been my grandpa.