Pluto!

[robj144]

Originally Posted by Davis Webb

Its not estimated. Its calculated. That's a huge difference.

It's estimated from a calculation.

[induction]

Originally Posted by robj144

It's estimated from a calculation.

Exactly right. We calculate estimations all the time. Calculations don't convert estimates into measurements.

Sometimes it's fun to jump into the 4th page of a discussion to see how people have managed to turn a benign opening post into an argument.

[D. Shelton]

Originally Posted by StivMacRae

Sometimes it's fun to jump into the 4th page of a discussion to see how people have managed to turn a benign opening post into an argument.

Rather fitting , given what the scientists have done with the classification of
Object Pluto

[patrickgm60]

Rather fitting, given what the scientists have done with the classification of Object Pluto

"Object" - I like it. A Monty Python skit, in the making. "International Committee for the Renaming of Objects."

[D. Shelton]

Originally Posted by patrickgm60

"Object" - I like it. A Monty Python skit, in the making. "International Committee for the Renaming of Objects."

With a room of their own ....down the hall from 'Arguments'

[Davis Webb]

Originally Posted by induction

Exactly right. We calculate estimations all the time. Calculations don't convert estimates into measurements.

Whoa. Hold on there. Calculations have a high probability here and are based on tons of electromagnetic data, radiation patterns, thermal patterns, astrophysical observations. They are based on direct measurement. By equating some astronomer's estimate with tons of hard data, you are not just toying with semantics, you are toying with the scientific method.

An estimate is what Mike Holmes gives you when they give you a quote for your driveway repaving.

An estimation is not a calculation. A calculation is based on a number of data points. Estimates are based on gut feeling.

Please do not reduce all the astrophysical data sets with a gut feeling.

If you do, you equivocate. And we better not start doing that in science threads.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by Davis Webb

Whoa. Hold on there. Calculations have a high probability here and are based on tons of electromagnetic data, radiation patterns, thermal patterns, astrophysical observations. They are based on direct measurement. By equating some astronomer's estimate with tons of hard data, you are not just toying with semantics, you are toying with the scientific method.

An estimate is what Mike Holmes gives you when they give you a quote for your driveway repaving.

An estimation is not a calculation. A calculation is based on a number of data points. Estimates are based on gut feeling.

Please do not reduce all the astrophysical data sets with a gut feeling.

If you do, you equivocate. And we better not start doing that in science threads.

It's still an estimate though from a calculation. Observation in this case yields probabilities and with those probabilities, an estimate can be made through a very simple calculation. Estimates are done all the time in science based on calculations.

See the title of this article:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...-in-our-galaxy

[induction]

Originally Posted by Davis Webb

Whoa. Hold on there. Calculations have a high probability here and are based on tons of electromagnetic data, radiation patterns, thermal patterns, astrophysical observations. They are based on direct measurement. By equating some astronomer's estimate with tons of hard data, you are not just toying with semantics, you are toying with the scientific method.

An estimate is what Mike Holmes gives you when they give you a quote for your driveway repaving.

An estimation is not a calculation. A calculation is based on a number of data points. Estimates are based on gut feeling.

Please do not reduce all the astrophysical data sets with a gut feeling.

If you do, you equivocate. And we better not start doing that in science threads.

A calculation that gives you a high probability of a quantity that is not inherently probabilistic is by definition an estimate.

Calculations and estimations are not antithetical. If I want to know the number of pennies in a jar, I can 1) count them, 2) guess, or 3) measure the jar, calculate the volume of non-vacant space in the jar, determine the expected packing fraction of loose pennies, and then calculate the number of pennies required to fill that volume.

1 is a direct measurement. 2 and 3 are estimates. Only 3 involves calculations based on measurements of hard data. Only 2 is based on a gut feeling.

The number of known extra-solar planets is determined by simply counting the number of them that have been directly detected, and there can only be one correct answer. The number of extrasolar planets in the galaxy can only be estimated at this point in history (with reasonably good accuracy, I agree), and there can be a wide range of good answers that depend on the inputs to the calculations and the assumptions behind the math. The number of extrasolar planets in the universe can't be estimated at this point, because the number of galaxies in the universe is not known, and probably never will be.

I have no intention of reducing anyone's scientific work to gut feeling. I am simply pointing out that there are two different quantities being talked about here. The number of known extrasolar planets, which is determined by simply counting them, and the expected number in some subset of the universe, which is determined by estimation. The line between estimates and direct measurements can be blurry sometimes, but in this case there is a categorical difference between them. None of this is controversial to scientists.

Estimation is a very important part of science, and does nothing harmful to the scientific method. When we can't measure something directly, we calculate an estimate based on the best data and assumptions we have available. Some of the most important scientific work in the history of mankind has been calculating estimates. By equating scientific estimates to gut feelings, you are not just toying with semantics, you are denigrating the life's work of hundreds of thousands of scientists, including me. (I forgive you. )

The confusion here seems to be either that you think that estimates are somehow not worthy of being called science, or that you equate the word 'estimate' with 'guess', much like non-scientists often do with the word 'theory'. Or maybe both.

[cotten]

I'm probably the only one who didn't make the connection between Queen's guitarist, Brian May, and Brian May, the astrophysicist, here explaining some of the Pluto research techniques being used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-zurr9PHKg

cotten

[robj144]

Originally Posted by induction

A calculation that gives you a high probability of a quantity that is not inherently probabilistic is by definition an estimate.

Calculations and estimations are not antithetical. If I want to know the number of pennies in a jar, I can 1) count them, 2) guess, or 3) measure the jar, calculate the volume of non-vacant space in the jar, determine the expected packing fraction of loose pennies, and then calculate the number of pennies required to fill that volume.

1 is a direct measurement. 2 and 3 are estimates. Only 3 involves calculations based on measurements of hard data. Only 2 is based on a gut feeling.

The number of known extra-solar planets is determined by simply counting the number of them that have been directly detected, and there can only be one correct answer. The number of extrasolar planets in the galaxy can only be estimated at this point in history (with reasonably good accuracy, I agree), and there can be a wide range of good answers that depend on the inputs to the calculations and the assumptions behind the math. The number of extrasolar planets in the universe can't be estimated at this point, because the number of galaxies in the universe is not known, and probably never will be.

I have no intention of reducing anyone's scientific work to gut feeling. I am simply pointing out that there are two different quantities being talked about here. The number of known extrasolar planets, which is determined by simply counting them, and the expected number in some subset of the universe, which is determined by estimation. The line between estimates and direct measurements can be blurry sometimes, but in this case there is a categorical difference between them. None of this is controversial to scientists.

Estimation is a very important part of science, and does nothing harmful to the scientific method. When we can't measure something directly, we calculate an estimate based on the best data and assumptions we have available. Some of the most important scientific work in the history of mankind has been calculating estimates. By equating scientific estimates to gut feelings, you are not just toying with semantics, you are denigrating the life's work of hundreds of thousands of scientists, including me. (I forgive you. )

The confusion here seems to be either that you think that estimates are somehow not worthy of being called science, or that you equate the word 'estimate' with 'guess', much like non-scientists often do with the word 'theory'. Or maybe both.

As another scientist, great post!

[flaggerphil]

Mickey Mouse knows what Pluto is...

"Aww, you're just a mutt."

[3rd_harmonic]

good estimates require a knowledge of the subject matter that direct measurement may not require. The two really go hand in hand.