The only reason Pluto is or isn't called a planet is because a group of scientists decided on a particular definition of the word planet. Pluto itself does not change, regardless of its status as a planet or not.

So this is one case where culture can in fact influence science. If scientists had chosen a different definition for the word planet, then Pluto could have just as easily kept its status as a planet.

This isn't a case like whether evolution is true or whether gravity is true. Clearly, nobody can just decide that either of those things are true, through a popular vote or anything. Similarly, nobody can simply will Pluto into or out of existence, through a popular vote or a vote of interested scientists. But the relevant experts could very well decide to change their accepted definition of what a planet is, and that could be done through a process that looks a whole lot like democracy (ie: they vote on it).

Indeed, they have already voted to set the definition of "planet" at least one time in the past, so there is no reason they could not do so in the future.

Pluto was called a planet because it was an only. Scientists don't create a class for one. When astro physicists saw more and learned more they discovered that Pluto was one among many and a whole new classification was named after Pluto. It wasn't cultural except as much as knowledge can change culture. Your assertion that it was somehow arbitrary is what keeps the conversation going, I guess.

For the record, I personally agree with the decision to define planets in a way that excludes Pluto and other similar objects. I understand how and why that decision was made, and I think it was probably the best way to do it.

By what I take issue with is the the assertion by the OP that those who believe Pluto should still be considered a planet believe that science is up for a popular vote. This is unfair in this case.

I'm sticking up for people I disagree with. Hard to believe, I know.

And you came to a mostly dead group to argue with us?

WOW! You are scared that science might run things. Hmm.

and was reclassified according to location as well as its diminutive size, just as Ceres has not been classified as a planet due to its small size and location within the near asteroid belt.

It's not up for discussion or vote. Better observation has classified it appropriately.

It's amazing how people can't let go of rubbish they learned in grammar school once research has proven it not to be the case. That's really what this is all about.

Science marches on. Certain segments of humanity, not so much.

Votes have no effect at all on scientific fact.

This is about the categories you split the bodies into, not about facts. So, yes, votes have no effect at all on scientific fact; but I can't see how this is 'like voting on evolution', since that would be voting about facts.

If you want as little voting as possible, I think you'd support calling Pluto a planet, because that just developed as a consensus without a formal vote. The IAU voted to have a formal definition of 'planet' that excluded Pluto. What about Ceres? When that was the first asteroid discovered, they called it a planet, thinking it occupied the 'gap' in Bode's Law. But then they found more asteroids around the same orbit, and it just sort of dropped out of being a planet, some time in the first half of the nineteenth century. Should that be a planet again, because it was at one time?

If you want to justify it with BS, well, that's another story. You created a great place, and you let it rot. Don't blame me and others for that.

...nutrition-guidelines, gun-violence statistics, the questions whether homosexuals are merely hormonal aberrations or yucky abominations...

EDIT:
What about genetics and evolution?
What about geological evidence for the age of the planet?
What about whether the C14-method works or not?

The classes and membership of classes of celestial objects are decided on by conventions and use. Both can change, without any changes in scientific knowledge. And there's nothing that says you have to have a certain amount of scientific knowledge to get to have your voice heard.

I think the IAU's arguments about Pluto were reasonable, so I'm happy with the 'dwarf planet' definition. But it is possible for people to think a collection of scientists haven't made a good decision about language (were they all astronomers? Were there some linguists involved too, or philosophers, who could have greater expertise in classification than astronomers?) As an example, some people may think all birds should be called reptiles. Or perhaps crocodiles should be reclassified as birds. There are scientific justifications for these opinions, but I wouldn't say it should be up to palaeontologists alone to make the decision on usage.

We SHOULD redefine the charge of the electron as +e because that would make calculations a lot easier. But we can't because too many people are used to it.

We SHOULD redefine 2*pi as tau because that would make calculations a lot easier. But we can't because too many people are used to it.

With the planets with have the possibility to use terms that are practical for the people who actually have to work with them.

and it doesn't alter the actual science. The irony is that the IAU took a vote at a meeting to decide on the category definitions. All some people are doing is complaining about the size of the franchise for the naming decision, and that got denounced in the 'pseudoscience' group as 'some DUers think science is a democratic proposition', when the IAU decision was an exercise in democracy itself.

Democracy is when every citizen that meets criteria of maturity gets a vote.
If those criteria go beyond mere maturity and demand an explicit expertise in a narrow field of knowledge, that isn't democracy. (I can't remember the political term right now. Meritocracy?) It's more of a caste-system.

Caste-systems have their upsides, but they have the massive disadvantage of hampering social mobility and become prone to phenomena like corruption and dictatorship. The biggest disadvantage is that this lack of social mobility hampers the influx of ideas, leaving the society ill-preprared for new problems. (Like a bacteria-strain who dies out because it doesn't mutate fast enough.)

It's about how to categorise solar system bodies, not about facts or hypotheses about them.