Then came Neptune, and it sort of fit, but not nearly so well, being far shy of the predicted Bodes placement. And then came Pluto, which didn't fit at all — intersecting, as it does, Neptune's unfortunately closer-than-Bodes orbit.

Do modern scientists still crave the stability of Bodes Law?

The whole thing does stink more of politics than science. It's a pity that only a handful of the world's astronomers were allowed to vote, but is there reason to believe that more voters would have led to a better outcome? This isn't democratic politics, which is about trying to get people to get along without warfare and revolution. This is science, which is supposed to be about real discoveries, real laws and regularities.

And yet, this nomenclature mess is what gets the news coverage.

Why? Well, to us non-scientists, it's the designations that matter because they seem certain. Even when they are (in truth) arbitrary.

There's a whole lot going on in our solar system. Maybe a huge boom in the number of planets would have been good for us, kicked us out of our sense of security. Maybe the scientists should have let well enough alone, letting the number of planets remain open to debate, giving us non-scientists a permanent reminder that science isn't just about answers, but about questions too.

Besides, agreeing to disagree about most things is the best lesson of democracy. Astronomers in the IAU should have learned that lesson rather than used voting techniques to "solve" a contentious issue not all that important.

How many planets are there? Well, there are four inner "terrestrial" planets, four outer gas giants, and . . . a whole lot of other objects that are a bit harder to categorize.

That answer passes scientific muster, probably better than the Prague vote. I bet that we mere Earthlings could've handled the lack of a simple answer on this subject.

As we can on many others.