Jose, Kate Julianne O.

STS 1
2020-08642 Assignment 2-1

Beyond the Ninth & Between Facts and Feelings:

“Exploring Epistemological Perspectives Through Pluto's Reclassification”

David Moshman’s article entitled “The Perils of Pluto” delves into a very intriguing
aspect of epistemology. In general, this refers to the investigation of what distinguishes justified
belief from opinion. Particularly, the article elaborates on the concept of epistemic
development. It pertains to the process of people’s acquisition of knowledge as it transforms
from merely identifying domains of knowledge at childhood, to gaining a more complex
understanding of knowledge as the ultimate truth throughout our adulthood. The interesting
notion about the article lies in how it presents the topic by relating it to the scientists’ struggles
at the time of the early 2000s, when they were trying to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of Pluto’s planetary status. So then, the purpose of Moshman’s article is not
exactly to set things straight about Pluto, but rather to explore the nature of human
understanding and the process by which knowledge evolves. By the end of the article, we gain a
better perspective that knowledge is not merely a collection of matters-of-definition. Rather,
knowledge, aside from its acquisition, can be revised based on evaluation of present
information. And since we have so many things yet to discover about the universe, it is still
possible for many things that we presently considered true to turn out to be false, which
intriguingly makes us question: is there actually any real meaning to our existence?

Once upon a time, about 18 years from this moment of writing, Pluto held the esteemed
title of “planet” without much dispute. If all of the universe's celestial bodies were to apply for
positions at the Solar System Corp., Pluto would have been among the nine qualified
candidates. It diligently performed its duties the same way as every other planet, as in orbiting
the sun and rotating on its own axis without complaint. Not until a year later, scientists laid it off
when their preliminary requirements suddenly shifted to exclude Pluto from the roster. These
scientists at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) did not discover anything new in
regards to Pluto’s physicality nor did any major astronomical event happen for it to be
obliterated from existence, thus rendering it completely incapable. Rather, it just so happens
that the truth of the matter at the time was beyond their prior knowledge of what exactly
entails to be a planet. According to the revised criteria, in addition to orbiting the sun and
possessing sufficient mass to assume a spherical shape, a planet must also clear its orbital
neighborhood of other debris, which is a requirement Pluto fails to meet due to its proximity to
the Kuiper Belt and its numerous similarly-sized objects. From then on, Pluto was just a mere
celestial body. This new perspective then raises the following epistemological inquiries, Are all
facts subject to radical change? Can any truth turn out to be false? If so, do we really know
anything at all?
 The extent to which one has knowledge about knowledge is considered as epistemic
cognition. Moshman’s article explains that children gain this perspective as early as the age of 4.
They then increasingly distinguish at least three epistemic domains over the course of their
elementary school years. These include an objective, subjective, and rational domain of truth.
Observably, these three are more concrete and digestible in everyday childhood experiences,
from merely describing dogs and cats as animals, to proclaiming their favorite ice cream flavors,
to interpreting the different ways one can go about playing on the playground’s sandbox or
sharing a snack with fellow peers. As they reach young adulthood, their understanding of
knowledge becomes more abstract and general. Rather than merely accepting and classifying
the truth of knowledge based on an objectivity scale, one at about age 11 to 12 would start
questioning the legitimacy of the truth of a given piece of information, regardless of the hard
sciences that back up its objective presentation. Consequently, this extent that one makes
progress in the knowledge about knowledge is known as epistemic development.

Let’s examine the perils of Pluto once again. From an objective epistemological
perspective, Pluto’s planetary exclusion reflects an objective approach to categorizing celestial
bodies based on empirical data. Because new data is presented, redefinitions are generated.
The implication here is that, as mere humans, we cannot know for certain everything about the
universe at a snap second. The quest for knowledge is a gradual methodological process,
involving multiple trial and error situations. Scientists engage in critical thinking, reevaluating
evidence, and adjusting theories based on new information. Presently, Pluto is considered a
dwarf planet. The definition of a dwarf planet is a small planetary-mass object that is in direct
orbit around the Sun, massive enough to be gravitationally rounded, but insufficient to achieve
orbital dominance
On the other hand, from a subjective perspective, some people may feel emotionally
attached to Pluto as the ninth planet, viewing its status shift as a betrayal of childhood
memories and cultural significance. The controversy highlights the subjective aspects of
knowledge which shape individuals’ attitudes towards scientific concepts. Personally, for me,
this aspect is the underlying reason why science has yet to destroy humanity. It is because the
main underlying rationale behind our consistent quest for knowledge and truth is to better
humanity itself. It highlights the mortality of human beings as a part of the whole universal
system, with their own considerations, rather than a separate entity that is neither above or
beyond the universe.
Lastly, from a rational perspective, the debates over Pluto’s reclassification involves
reasoning and logic as to whether Pluto meets the IAU’s criteria for planetary status. This
rational approach underscores the importance of balancing empirical evidence with conceptual
reasoning in the pursuit of knowledge. The redefinition of Pluto as a dwarf planet, not only
reflects the dynamic nature of scientific understanding, but also challenges existing paradigms
regarding what qualifies as a 'planet.' This shift in perspective has led to a deeper exploration of
similar celestial bodies, such as Ceres, Haumea, Eris, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, and Sedna
among many others that have yet to be discovered. Furthermore, it has broadened our
conception of planets to include not only the classical eight but also dwarf planets and satellite
planets.
 In conclusion, Pluto's transition from planet to dwarf planet serves as a compelling
illustration of epistemic development in scientific discourse. This journey underscores the
dynamic nature of our understanding, which continuously evolves in response to new evidence
and insights. It highlights the importance of adopting a holistic perspective when evaluating
objects and conceptual frameworks. The shifting status of Pluto, encapsulated in the
metaphorical "perils," symbolizes the inherent uncertainties and complexities embedded within
scientific inquiry. Embracing these uncertainties is pivotal for fostering intellectual growth and
advancing our knowledge frontier. It is not something to be doomed but rather something that
we should consider as a gift of humility. Scientists play a crucial role in this process by
communicating objectively, recognizing both established facts and lingering uncertainties. By
navigating these uncertainties with transparency and rigor, scientists can collectively contribute
to the refinement and expansion of our scientific understanding.