Should Science Be Politically Correct?
Recently Google claimedit had reached “Quantum Supremacy”, which is an important discussion in its own right.
The term “Quantum Supremacy” was coined in 2012 by John Preskill, a theoretical physicist at Caltech, to describe the point at which quantum computers can do things that classical computers cannot.
But the journal Nature took issue with the term because of its use of “supremacy”, suggesting the term “quantum advantage” be used instead. Some 13 scientists were co-signatories. They described their reasoning as such:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03781-0
Stephen Pinker, himself not a fan of political correctness, mocked the article.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1206662965614825472[/tweet]
As to my own opinion I agree with Nature that quantum computing and science in general should be an open arena and an inspiration for a new generation of scientists, but agree with Pinker that this political correctness should be resisted, especially in the sciences, because it dumbs down the meaning of language. Euphemism distorts more than it clarifies.
Given that “political correctness” has been on the lips of pundits, politicians and writers for some time now, I think this raises a good discussion for philosophers because it extends to their own craft.
Obviously some people feel this way, or they wouldn’t make the suggestion. It’s easy to mock them but derision is usually unproductive. Their claim may very well be right that people would turn away from quantum computing because the term “supremacy” is uncomfortable. Perhaps it is important to be sensitive to their feelings in that respect so as to appear more welcoming. I also think it’s fair that any enterprise would prefer an inclusive public image and reputation.
Should Science be politically correct?
The term “Quantum Supremacy” was coined in 2012 by John Preskill, a theoretical physicist at Caltech, to describe the point at which quantum computers can do things that classical computers cannot.
But the journal Nature took issue with the term because of its use of “supremacy”, suggesting the term “quantum advantage” be used instead. Some 13 scientists were co-signatories. They described their reasoning as such:
We consider it irresponsible to override the historical context of this descriptor, which risks sustaining divisions in race, gender and class. We call for the community to use ‘quantum advantage’ instead.
...
In our view, ‘supremacy’ has overtones of violence, neocolonialism and racism through its association with ‘white supremacy’. Inherently violent language has crept into other branches of science as well — in human and robotic spaceflight, for example, terms such as ‘conquest’, ‘colonization’ and ‘settlement’ evoke the terra nullius arguments of settler colonialism and must be contextualized against ongoing issues of neocolonialism.
Instead, quantum computing should be an open arena and an inspiration for a new generation of scientists.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03781-0
Stephen Pinker, himself not a fan of political correctness, mocked the article.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1206662965614825472[/tweet]
As to my own opinion I agree with Nature that quantum computing and science in general should be an open arena and an inspiration for a new generation of scientists, but agree with Pinker that this political correctness should be resisted, especially in the sciences, because it dumbs down the meaning of language. Euphemism distorts more than it clarifies.
Given that “political correctness” has been on the lips of pundits, politicians and writers for some time now, I think this raises a good discussion for philosophers because it extends to their own craft.
Obviously some people feel this way, or they wouldn’t make the suggestion. It’s easy to mock them but derision is usually unproductive. Their claim may very well be right that people would turn away from quantum computing because the term “supremacy” is uncomfortable. Perhaps it is important to be sensitive to their feelings in that respect so as to appear more welcoming. I also think it’s fair that any enterprise would prefer an inclusive public image and reputation.
Should Science be politically correct?
Comments (137)
Science should be politically neutral, which is why scientific terms shouldn't have political overtones. If "supremacy" can be considered historically such a term or has recently developed into such a term, it would be sensible to avoid it, especially if doing so incurred no great cost or inconvenience. But of course, since your goal here is to politicize science under the guise of complaining about the politicization of science that answer will hardly satisfy you.
And science IS politically neutral. Yes, they did it even in the Soviet Union as they did in liberal UK and US.
Anyway, even if the word "Quantum dominance" would trigger less foolishness, this is a typical nonsensical scaremongering to get more funds. The narrative is usually used in the China vs the US competition debate, where there is this outrageous claim that if China gets "Quantum Supremacy", they'll bury the US. That's why the term "supremacy".
I remember similar scares about Japan burying the US. And naturally the Soviet Union doing that with Sputnik.
Well, this is exactly what @NOS4A2 wants. Let's use scientific objectivity (who could disagree with that!) to bash political correctness because one person wrote an article co-signed by hardly more than a dozen scientists suggesting there was a less political way to refer to a scientific term. Suddenly science is being infantilized! Hook, line, and sinker.
Anyway, my position is I couldn't care less one way or the other what they call it in this case. Retaining the term will change nothing important nor would replacing it as imo the political overtones are not strong enough to be concerned about. :yawn:
Such as... ? Where's the broad PC attack on science that we need to worry about going on? The only serious attacks on science I'm aware of are from the right. And the idea that we should be worried about this shit when far-right think tanks are forever dreaming up new ways to deny climate change and nutty religious fanatics are trying to take biblical literalism mainstream is what's infantile or at least naive in the extreme. As is not realizing what @NOS4A2 is up to, but, sure, play along.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/15/united-nations-climate-talks-collapse-after-trump-shuns-paris-pact-085464
Many scientists have voiced concerns over the way political correctness is affecting science, especially coupled with the system of peer review which, in its current form, is horribly flawed. I could link articles, but given your disposition I suspect that would be an exercise in futility. With a Google-search you'll be able to find them yourself.
My disposition is to show maximum contempt for @NOS4A2 complaining about the "dumbing down" of science over the suggested use of an alternative word for one scientific term by a tiny number of scientists for at the very worst a misguided reason when the willful stupidity on climate change and other scientific issues by the President he supports literally threatens lives. Anyway, it won't do to use that as an excuse not to back up your own position. Again, show me the broad infantilization of science caused by PC. I'm much more likely to listen to you than @NOS4A2.
Agreed, but that doesn't apply in this case. There is no protection from "facts" in changing the word "supremacy" to "dominance" or whatever, there is only a change in connotation and tone. So, can you give me an example where a protection from scientific fact has been demanded, or even better, successfully demanded by proponents of PC?
This is along the lines of what I'm getting at; changing the name of a scientific term to something equally descriptive but less emotive or connotative is not a scientific issue and doesn't have any negative effect on science.
Where's your evidence she was fired for discovering a fact? Hint: You have none. But go on, try.
I guess we have arrived at this game again. An exercise in futility as I suspected.
No, you're giving up for good reason.
"Crockford is a signatory of the International Conference on Climate Change's 2008 Manhattan Declaration,[12] which states that "Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity...appear to have only a very small impact on global climate," and "Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial."[13] Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute, in the form of $750 per month"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford#Controversy
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois ... Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
"After 15 years as an adjunct professor, University of Victoria did not renew her contract in May 2019, possibly for her climate change views."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford#Controversy
So, it's possible she was not renewed for being a climate-denying crank. Not surprising seeing as she was being bribed by climate change deniers and hadn't even had her supposed polar-bear studies peer-reviewed. So, no facts and not even any evidence she was let go because of those particular studies. Just right-wing spin.
Try again.
But it's not science. It's a way of describing a technological advance. To ask if science should be politically correct raises ideas like should people publish research results that have politically incorrect implications and the like.
Calling it supremacy or advantage is not a scientific issue. To decide to call it advantage is not damaging science. It is not inhibility research...
in fact it sounds more accurate.
It might be the top computer, in this way, now. But that's temporary.
I do think the reaction is also exaggerated. I don't think it matters much either way, frankly.
But P.C. is not interfering with science, but rather with the wording a company is using about its technological advance. A wording that does not give useful information.
I guess you didn't participate in the Decolonizing Science? thread. :wink:
Starting from taxonomic hierarchy, the rank below a subspecies is where the left goes all PC at an instant. Political correctness has made it that we avoid the whole term itself. Related to this is the age old question the role of genes versus learned traits, what is biological and what is social and learnt.
Then there's the leftist case against evolutionary psychology. If evolutionary psychology among other objectives looks to finding traits that have been shown to be universal in humans, it clashes head on to the question of what is universal for the species and what is dependent on cultural and particular historical circumstances.
And of course there is the assault against modifying plants and animals, even if we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection.
Starting from the obvious examples of Lysenkoism, the left has as flagrantly as the (religious)right judged science based solely on political beliefs and ideology. Finally there's the whole dark pit of social sciences, which naturally are an open battleground for the left and the right. It's so bad that we make the separation between social sciences (and history) and the natural sciences.
Certain kind of science or scientists are typically erroneously thought to have an opposing political agenda, hence both left and the right attack that specific scientific research or scientists with equal vigor. And both leftist and right-wing politicians would be all too happy if they can argue their opinions by saying "It is a scientific fact!".
Thank F someone is making an effort. I'll get back to you on this. At least it will take more than a thirty second Google search to refute.
(Just one point for now is that I don't equate the left with PC.)
Make that hours. It's nearly midnight here bud'. :lol:
The issue is over whether a term describing a technological advance should have this adjective like noun or this other adjective like noun.
I think advantage is actually more accurate. I think the reaction by the anti-supremacy crowd are overly melodramatic.
No science is being suppressed or hidden, though.
It is science. “Quantum Supremacy” is a technical term in quantum computing. The word “supremacy” still has meaning outside the context of race and colonial studies.
Quoting Baden
This is what he said.
Quoting NOS4A2
Language, not science.
Political correctness and the use of euphemism in science has nothing to do with politics. Political correctness is reviled by both left and right.
My point is that science should remain ideology-free and scientists should have free reign to use the words they see fit. The threat from the religious is well-known and hardly warrants discussion, but the threat from the post-modernists and constructivists is becoming more apparent.
The Sokal affair is an example, but also the cancelling of Nobel Laureate Timothy Hunt proves pressure can result in loss of employment and social ostracism.
Philosopher of Science Noretta Koertge wrote a wonderful article on this very topic and gives plenty more examples.
https://www.nas.org/blogs/dicta/political_correctness_in_the_science_classroom
I'm sure Crockford is a very dislikable person, but that doesn't make her wrong.
I don't agree with the pc monitors that the use of that word is problematic. I don't agree with the defenders that there is any loss of information.
If using a different lable meant that people no longer had access to the research and people, the public, no longer knew that quantum computers could do things classical computers cannot
that would fit the hysteria of the one's defending the term. But that's not the case.
I see two hysterias meeting. The PC people are wildly overreacting to a term. Those on the other side who see this as hiding science from the public and controlling science are also wildly overreacting.
I don't find myself approving of colonialism if I use that term.
I can still understand just as easily with another term that quantum computers can, if they can, do things that classical computers cannot.
No research is concealed or censored. No conclusions are kept out of the public realm.
And, in fact, there are likely clearer terms for this. If I read something about Quantum Supremacy, I would not think I was dealing with a clear scientific term. It sounds like sales terminology or a James Bond movie or a new car.
It also has nothing in it about computing in it.
And it's not on the tip of the tongues of most people.
It does not clearly communicate the information.
No loss if another term is used.
No damage, I think, if it is used, except if a lot of people think there is damage, then that becomes a kind of damage, unfortunately.
Does it follow, then, that “supremacy” should be banned from use?
What seems to be going on with this (and other) words is that people look at a word, check to see if they can free-associate something negative to the word, and if hey can, they feel everyone must stop using it. The behavior reminds me of the Monty Python skit in which the daughter becomes hysterical whenever she hears a "tinny sounding word" - preferring "woody sounding words"--like "intercourse".
This nonsensical political correctness is starting to infest science fiction. I recently read two sci-fi novels in which there were "aliens from other star systems". The leadership on board the space ships were very concerned that racist or prejudicial terms not be applied to the aliens. One of the alien species, a bird-like creature, interbred with a human. (Don't ask me how that would work!). The human mother was very protective of her monstrous child, very concerned that people would reject her because she was "different". Different indeed. While the mother was dithering over the equal rights opportunities for her half-bird child, the bird species was busy wiping out 9/10 of the human inhabitants on earth--too stupid and not cooperative enough. For some odd reason the humans didn't accuse the killer birds of genocide.
The concept of political correctness was invented as satire by the left, adopted by conservatives lacking the self-awareness to realize they were being mocked, and finally appropriated by reactionaries to justify their victomhood complex. The only people decrying political correctness - i.e., the absolute minimum that you can do, as a human being, to accommodate your fellow citizens - are right-wing ideologues seeking to justify existing systems of inequality. Your bigotry is pretty transparent.
It's a very interesting question. I do see the reason that the use of the word 'supremacy' is contested in this context, due to its association with 'white supremacy', but I think it's an overly sensitive reaction. It never would have occured to me that the term had such connotations until someone said something like that. So, I think it is 'political correctness' and that it's a bit silly, but I don't think it's worth arguing over.
(The more substantive issue is, whether Google really did attain whatever name they wish to give it. See for instance here. There are sceptics, like Gil Kallai, who dispute whether an actual quantum computer will ever be built (see here. )
The Sokal affair is more about lax scientific standards. He makes his argument even more clear in his book "Fashionable nonsense".
James Watson is one example of the minefield that a scientist gets into when he starts to talk about race. Hence the threat of ostracism is real.
The thing is that scientists cannot operate outside the society and scientists form a social group. That doesn't imply that using the scientific method you cannot get objective results, simply that we are prisoners of our time. The Kuhnian idea of Paradigms is correct in my view, but ought not to be given too much importance.
That’s not true. Most Americans at least oppose it, right and left young and old, and every shade of color.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
Political correctness has been derided by pundits from all over the spectrum.
The argument for changing 'supremacy' to something else is precisely that science should be ideologically free because 'supremacy' is considered by those scientists making the argument to be an ideologically loaded term. And if scientists were given free reign to use the words they see fit, they would be given free reign to introduce ideology into science. So, your position here is incoherent.
Yes, politics can interfere with science and there are a lot of issues raised in your post, some of which may relate to political correctness. But getting more specific, there are two questions I find interesting:
1) If a scientific fact was politically explosive, would obscuring it be justified? (Should "political correctness" ever take precedence over scientific truth?)
2) Is there any instance of a scientific fact where this kind of deception has taken place? (Something that's scientifically true but the public at large is not allowed to know).
I would lean 'no' on the first one, but it's a very thorny issue. On 2) I believe the answer currently is 'no'.
So, what I would ask of you is can you find a specific instance where you can demonstrate the answer to 2) is 'yes' and do you have an unequivocal position on 1)?
The 13 scientists involved in the controversy are clearly a farsighted lot to realize the negative connotations of "supremacy". Even though the word in question is nowhere as offensive as "Hitler" we can see that their concern is quite legitimate. A stitch in time saves nine.
Sure. I'll disagree with you on this matter and try to argue my point.
From history we find many examples of this, starting with Galileo Galilei, the Catholic Church and issues about how celestial bodies operate. The dilemma between Science and Religion is not only philosophical, but also quite political. Darwin's theories are still 'controversial' for some even today. This isn't limited just to science vs religion: when it is perceived that science clashes with our morals, people are up in arms about it. And sometimes it is very important to have the discussion on just what is morally correct and what isn't. If I remember correctly, Keith Campbell and Ian Wilmut, those scientists who made the first mammal clone with Dolly the Sheep, asked openly for a discussion and guideline on the topic.
We do not accept eugenics, the idea of excluding certain genetic groups judged to be inferior, but how do we in general approach genetic editing of humans? That we can engineer humans is that explosive scientific fact, a thing that we do might want to stop, which you asked about in question 1.
If in the future you don't use plastic surgery, but you genetically modify a human embryo (or the sperm and the ovula) that the human being becomes beautiful, athletic etc? What would happen when those that can afford buying genetic treatment that makes people healthier, smarter, stronger and/or better looking? Now it's still just science fiction, yet if we accept such treatment to fight hereditary or any other diseases, where do we draw the line? It is a political question.
The question isn't anymore theoretical after He Jiankui's experiments:
The Chinese authorities suspended Jiankui's research and he has been fired from the University he worked in. So because of this, both questions 1 and 2 are in my view yes-answers.
Political correctness is used as a pejorative, yes. But it does also mean that language or policies are used with the intention to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Or then in a more general definition: something that is correct from a certain political viewpoint, but not universally accepted to be so.
Words are not ideology, the freedom to use whatever terms the scientist feels appropriate is not the same as the freedom to introduce ideology into science. The word “supremacy” does not mean “white supremacy”, nor restricted to any other use of the term “supremacy” that might bother somebody. The intent of using the word “supremacy” had nothing to do with race, or whatever other context people might be triggered by.
You have it backwards, restricting the use of a word that makes people uncomfortable when that word was not even being used in the same way that makes those people uncomfortable is whats introducing ideology, not the initial, innocent use of the term.
Further, controlling word usage in this fashion is not harmless, its a wedge for authoritarian control whether its intended that way or not. (Meaning, even if that control is used to combat racism or something by a good actor, it can and will be used by bad actors).
First of all, of course words can be ideological. No words, no ideology. And that doesn't mean that "words are ideology"—as in every word is ideological—because ideologically loaded words are a subset of words in general; I'm not claiming any more than the obvious on that one. Secondly, if a particular scientist is given free rein to name a scientific term any way s/he wants, it follows (seeing that at least some words are ideologically loaded) that s/he is given free rein to introduce ideological connotations. That doesn't mean s/he will do that but s/he could and there should be a mechanism to keep this unnecessarily ideological baggage out of science. This is what @NOS4A2 claims to want, and I agree with the desire, but as I said his position is confused. Thirdly, I never made the argument that "supremacy" means "white supremacy" nor did anybody else. The argument made by the small group of scientists in question is that the term "supremacy" connotes the idea of white supremacy, that therefore it is polluted by that term and a more neutral phrasing is desirable. Seeing as the only consequence of a more neutral phrasing with a synonymous term would be to remove the possibility of the negative connotation, it's a hardly a terribly unreasonable proposal. But it's not one that I would be gunning for either.
Quoting DingoJones
Again, a very confused position. Combating racism in science shouldn't be allowed because that could be used by bad actors and therefore it's authoritarian to do so? So, a scientist could discover a new particle and call it the "N-word particle" and we would be word-Nazis to oppose that? I suggest you either think things through a bit more or try to phrase your arguments with more nuance (If you just mean, for example, this type of word control is not always harmless but still should be allowed then fine, but you give the impression you're against it in principle).
The sensible solution to this is that the scientific community follow a set of thoroughly thought-through guidelines on the appropriate naming of scientific concepts and enforce those in a unified and fair fashion to keep politically incendiary notions as remote from scientific terms as possible. No trial by Nature article but no absolute free rein either.
You got alot wrong in that so its hard to see where to respond. (Not necessarily your fault, you said I might look at my phrasing as the source of confusion and maybe you are right). Ill try and focus in a bit to avoid getting lost in the weeds here. Also, I realise I responded to something you were saying to Nos, but I did not mean for my comment to be a continuation of what he was saying.
First thing:
The scientists didnt introduce ideology by using the term “supremacy”. The people triggered by that word are the ones introducing ideology by Inserting their notion that the word is a problem into the mix. The original scientists using the term “supremacy” were not using it with any idealogical intention whatsoever. This is not the same as your example with the “N” word, which as far as I know has no other use except in the realm of ideology. (Thus by using it the scientist would be inviting ideology.)
I get that, but a) The connotations of words can change over time regardless of intention (that includes the N-word!) and b) If you accept the principle that some words, such as the extreme example I gave, don't belong in a scientific context, we're mostly on the same page but disagree over particular instances, right?
:down:
Im not sure the relevance of a). What I see as relevant is what connotation the word has as intended by the user. If an inoffensive word becomes offensive, that doesnt mean we should treat the initial use of the word as offensive. It works the other way too. Take your own extreme example. If later the “N” word comes to mean something nice, and pleasant and is perfectly acceptable then we do not look at its previous usage (ie “those damn “N words” are lower forms of animal life to be subjugated or exterminated”) as acceptable, its still horrible. By the same token, the word “supremacy” is still harmless even if it has come to be used horribly in certain contexts.
For b), I don’t accept that certain words do not belong in a scientific context, only some scientific contexts. To use your example again, someone could be doing a study about social effects of the “N” word, or someone could be doing a study on the use of the word in history etc etc.
Yes, a person could use the “N” word in science (as a name for something as you said) but in that case they are the ones introducing ideology then. (Unless they somehow do not know the words history I suppose).
That is not whats going on with this word “supremacy” though, is it?
Do you remember the time when the rocket scientist Matt Taylor successfully landed a spacecraft on a comet? We all should, yet the amazing accomplishment was overshadowed by the response to the shirt he wore during the live-stream of the mission, which had upon it women in “pornographic poses”. The PC backlash went on to imply that the shirt was an example of why women shy away from STEM fields—“casual sexism” as a Slate article put it, and “casual misogyny” in a Verge article—and that Taylor and his shirt were guilty of it. After the greatest moment of his career was ruined, Taylor broke down in tears upon admitting his poor choice in shirts, and apologized profusely to the victims of his “sexism”, who no-doubt laid prostrate on the floor around him.
So on the one hand I can agree with avoiding offending people in our own language, but often its about enforcing an orthodoxy and punishing anyone who strays from it.
Hey NOS4A2,
Don't mean to gang tackle you, but wanted to give you some tough love here. Because of your current far-right political beliefs, I can't help but provide a little insight to your dilemma... .
Matt Taylor probably works as a public official (I used to work for the gov't; now back in private sector). And, even if he wasn't a public official, he is in the public eye by virtue of his position. Unless I'm missing something obvious, don't you think that what he was wearing was, inappropriate, knowing he would be exposed to national television or otherwise the public eye?
I mean, of course dude, it is PC. Acting reasonable requires treating like cases likely; different cases differently. Thus, if one attends a black tie event with a t-shirt; if one attends a wedding with soiled clothing, if one forgets to insert their false teeth giving a speech to the public, if one wears a speedo with a Harley jacket to the beach, ad nauseum.
In the case of the astronomer Matt Taylor, it's actually irresponsible, for a trained professional to act unprofessional by wearing a sexually charged t-shirt in the given context. If the dude wanted to just wear a t-shirt, why didn't it relate to his profession, like a shirt with the Solar system/planet's on it or something??
I mean, this is common sense dude. I know you are a Trumper. And maybe that's why you and the far-right don't understand the value of certain political correctness... . In fact, don't even call it PC; call it common sense.
Should he be admonished for that inappropriate/offensive T-shirt given the circumstances ? If not, why not?
Far-right? That’s a lie, but I appreciate the concern.
I find policing what people wear is far more offensive and inappropriate than a rocket scientist’s choice of shirts. If you want to engage in that sort of behavior there are plenty religions that have morality police.
Dude, it has nothing to do with morality. It is political correctness. Do you get that?
Then what’s the problem with “wearing a sexually charged t-shirt”? It didn’t hinder his job at all. If it is simply a matter of not liking the t-shirt, then saying “I don’t like his t-shirt” suffices.
You didn't read what I wrote. It was inappropriate for the venue.
Assuming you're married and maybe have kids. What if your daughter got married and the groom's friends or best man attending was wearing a sexually charged T-shirt?
Would you just say okay, 'I don't like his T-shirt but it's still appropriate for my daughter's wedding pictures?'
It’s “inappropriate”? Like it was once inappropriate for women to wear trousers?
I don’t think his shirt was inappropriate at all. What I do think is inappropriate is berating a decorated scientist and tarnishing his feats because they don’t like his t-shirt.
Are you saying that if a woman wore trousers with sexually charged graphics that that would be appropriate?
Really, NOS4A2, REALLY?
A lewd shirt??? That's your point?
Yeah, I know you started this thread... but this is the dumbing down of discourse. As some imbecile "shirtgate" would be about science.
Schäme dich!
No I’m saying people can decide on their own the appropriateness of their attire.
Actually you avoided my point, proving your own efforts to dumb down the discourse.
let me get this straight are you saying wearing sexually-charged attire is appropriate for most wedding pictures?
No I’m saying people can decide on their own the appropriateness of their attire no matter what I think is appropriate or not.
Okay should the president of the United States wear a wife beater tank top and a public speaking event?
I don’t think that is appropriate, no. But if he did I would defend his right to do so as I would anyone else.
Okay let's take it to the next level how would you defend that in the face of your children watching TV when the president of the United States wears a sexually-charged t-shirt at a public speaking event. Tell me how you would defend that.
I would simply tell them the president has every right to wear the clothing he chooses even if we don’t like it because that freedom is more important than our aversion to his t-shirt. I would tell them that whether I find the shirt offensive cannot, and should never, be used as an excuse for suppressing that freedom, because that’s exactly the mentality used by totalitarian and repressive forces to justify their denial of human rights.
Avoided my ass.
Nope, what you are doing is this reurgitation of stories 'how out-of-whack and loony the PC crowd' is. What you are talking isn't even a media hype, but a typical twitter rant of some sort that pop up every now and then in social media. It really has absolutely nothing to do with science: so someone tweets that OMG! That lewd shirt means that women aren't welcome in the scientific community and some useless journalist who has nothing else up his or her sleeve tries to puff up this to something bigger... and then the anti-PC crowd notices it and takes it as an example how out of control the politically correct woke SJWs are today and so it goes on....
This is the dumbing down of public discourse that we see everywhere. When we treat something as bullshit as Twitter tweets as equivalent to Op-eds of serious media outlets (And I'm sure you'll find a genuine Op-ed about the lousy shirtgate), we get into this level of stupidity. It simply is counterproductive.
So let's have a serious discussion..... NOT!!! ROTFLMAO! :joke: :love: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker:
You evaded the question let me rephrase it. Would you tell your children that it is appropriate for any president to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt at all his/her public speaking events?
Yes or no.
If you don’t want to discuss it I get that. Perhaps it’s not high-brow enough for you. But I think that because it dumbs down public discourse is one of the reasons it should be opposed. I was only trying to give some examples.
I wouldn’t tell them that, no.
So are you conceding that the astronomer's sexually charged t-shirt was inappropriate for the venue?
I am not, no.
Look, let’s discuss the topic. I’m willing to hear your argument. As far as I know you think the shirt is inappropriate for the venue. Do you believe this justifies the treatment of Matt Taylor?
I will discuss the second part of the topic no problem. But the first part I'm confused with your logic.
On the one hand you're saying you would not endorse a president wearing a sexually-charged t-shirt at all his/hee public speaking events. And so you would, in our analogy, go ahead and tell your children that it would be inappropriate for the president to do so.
On the other hand you're not willing to concede to the inappropriateness of the astronomer's sexually-charged t-shirt.
Did I get that right,?
(Again we're talking about what is appropriate for the venue. )
I wouldn’t tell them it was inappropriate. I wouldn’t tell them this because 1) I am not prim and wish not to promote that behavior to anyone, and 2) I think there are better ways to go about it. We can simply tell them what they should wear, what people expect them to wear, and why they should do so, for example.
Gosh I'm still confused. You said among other things:
1. " We can simply tell them what they should wear".
2. " ... what people expect them to wear".
3. "... And why they should do so."
Definition of Appropriate: suitable or proper in the circumstances.
So are you saying it's appropriate or inappropriate to wear the sexually-charged t-shirt?
Yes I think it’s appropriate.
And so you would tell your children that correct? And as a policy maker you would endorse all those under you to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt in a public venue right?
I wouldn’t, no.
Look I know you want to make me look silly, but is that argument coming any time soon?
What do you think about their taking issue with the term and their justifications for doing so? Are they right? Are they wrong?
I'm arguing the first part of your logic. This isn't about emotion as you're suggesting.
My argument is central to your outcome or consequences of said behavior. If now you're changing your view that it's appropriate for a public official to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt, then you should be able to accept the consequences of your arbitrary position.
How do you square that circle and make it objectively true that all public officials should wear sexually-charged t-shirts during public speaking engagements?
I never said anything like that. I think that shirt is appropriate given the venue. You don’t. So why do you think it is inappropriate? Is it because it is politically incorrect to do so?
Yep. It's not politically correct to do so. It's common sense.
Would you like me to repost my justification? Otherwise you have not provided any justification for it being appropriate and suitable or proper for the circumstances.
I'm waiting....
I think it’s totally appropriate because I’m not offended by his shirt. It’s just a collared shirt with cartoons on it. It’s common sense.
So if you're trying to argue a paradigm shift then make your case?
Provide supporting data relative to employment job descriptions, dress codes, analogous social norms and customs snd the like.
Did I miss something or have you provided that somewhere?
What I’m trying to argue is that we should resist the pressure on science to conform to a limited, ever-changing and infantilizing lexicon of speech, in this case the lexicon of the politically correct. I’ve already given examples and shared the concurring arguments of others to give force to the argument.
Unless I'm missing something, I think you are making it too complicated. Seems like you're arguing under the guise of a simple rant about political correctness, (which is probably why in part you voted for Trump not sure).
Anyway, seems to me there are two relevant issues:
1. Sociology viz. public policy making in the workplace, etc..
2. Unbiased/objective science.
Number one, you haven't demonstrated anything. Common sense and reasonableness requires political correctness (to some degree or another) is appropriate in society.
And number two, of course the majority of people would ideally like unbiased objective science.
Take climate change for instance.. The climate is, in fact, changing: true or false(?).
So again, the scientist wearing the out-of-place inappropriate sexually-charged t-shirt at a publicized event deserved admonishment. What's so hard to understand about that?
Exactly.
Quoting NOS4A2
In my view comments about a shirt as an example of the effect of political correctness on science is itself dumbing down the issue. It's as far fetched as the tweets saying that the shirt shows how hostile STEM field is towards women.
Is this really about science? I don't think so. At least the picture meme below has partly the same narrative as NOS4A2 mentioned in
This is just a good example how stupid the debate becomes in social media. Hope PF doesn't go there.
Oh wait, we are there already.
You might not care that a scientist’s name and feats were dragged through the mud for wearing a shirt, but the idea that talking about it dumbs down the discourse is a stretch. We do know that in America today a university president or Nobel Laureate may be publicly chastised and even asked to resign for discussing hypotheses that are deemed politically incorrect. We know that a scientist and his feats will be publicly excoriated if he wears a stupid t-shirt. No, they are no Giordano Bruno, but this is important and not as dumb as you pretend.
In American society, only a small fringe of privileged progressives believe political correctness is a good thing. The vast majority fear and dislike it. So much for common sense.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
Hopefully you do understand the difference of a scientist getting attacked either because the scientific study he (or she) has made and/or the conclusions the scientist has made from the study and being attacked because publicly wearing a babe-shirt is offensive to some. There is a difference in the seriousness of the matter. Sticking to the trivial can be counterproductive.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's more important when actual scientific research is compromised or altered because of political correctness or political ideology, even if science has to deal with ethical questions. And there's a short distance from scientific ethics to political correctness or political ideology.
Yes I understand the difference, but I don’t see how it is trivial or how pointing it out is counterproductive. A Nobel laureate being ostracized and losing his fellowship because he told a silly joke seems to me a serious matter. A university president resigning because he said there is differences in male and female brains seems to me a serious matter. A rocket scientist brought to tears over harassment and abuse because of his t-shirt is a serious matter. Science cannot flourish in such a culture.
Sure but the seriousness of compromised research does not lessen the seriousness of the politically correct bullying of scientists.
They have not.
We quabble about a word, we argue the emotional strength of expressions, but nobody pays attention to the actual claim.
We are so human. (Except for me. I am not.)
They achieved quantum supremacy. This is worth a discussion in its own right, but not the intended topic of discussion.
So... we have computing power now that have been thought to be achievable only with quantum computers, but we have them without having quantum computers... presumably because the criteria has been met some other way, using non-quantum computers.
That's news to me. But then again, I ain't no scientist.
Or else quantum computers are here, and BestBuy sells them for $299.99.
I take your word for it, so I won't dispute it any longer. I'm just humongously surprised, that's all.
Sorry, I mean to say they claimed quantum supremacy. Whether they actually did has already been disputed.
No sweat. You actually had said what you claimed you had said. No breach there. You had said "Google claimed" etc. So you are perfectly all right.
Yet this is something that isn't contained to science. In other workplaces similar events can happen. Being a comedian is especially difficult in these times.
Quoting NOS4A2
Are scientist somehow a special case in this era of cyberbullying? I don't think so.
Interesting. Trump politically denies climate change. You're a Trumper. Aren't you being a hypocrite?
You appear to be hypocritical in your exaggerated concern over a T-shirt/freedom of expression and political correctness. In other words, on the one hand you're denouncing political correctness in favour of freedom of expression when it suits you, on the other hand you use similar politics to support your likely denial of climate change. How do you square that circle?
You appear to be making this up as you go along. I’m willing to discuss the topic and defend my views if you’re ever interested.
Please tell me where I'm wrong in my analysis of your hypocrisy... ?
Quoting ssu
If science IS politically neutral, then it is those that perceived science as making a political statement when using some term, like "supremacy", that would be making the category error.
So the error isn't NOS4A2's. The error is made by the very people he is complaining about. I didn't see anything in his OP labeling the writers of Nature as leftists. It seems to me that you have politicized his OP.
Then why does he support someone who politicizes climate change science? Isn't that hypocritical...
If the meaning of words is how they are used in a certain context, then we're mixing up the contexts. For one to assert a political meaning to a word used in a scientific context, would be to make a category error.
I agree. But his political support/views of science suggest otherwise.
Meaning, his lack of consistent credibility has greatly diminished the impact of his argument. He likely ignores climate change science for similar political reasons. I've asked the OP to reconcile the T-shirt thing through public employment policies and other tenets/maxims from known Sociological data, but have yet to see any from him.
So think he should rephrase the OP to something like:
Should all Science be free of politics?
Otherwise I agree with Baden, this appears to be just a rant.
Given your political views and support it’s no wonder you want to deflect from the topic. Your credibility has decreased the impact of your arguments.
Is that all you got?
I'm waiting for you to reconcile your paradox that you put yourself into... . Let us know when you're brave enough to work yourself out of the political extremist box LOL!
You made things up. In other words you pretended I put myself into a paradox.
Please tell me where I'm wrong in my analysis of your hypocrisy... ?
What hypocrisy? I have said nothing hypocritical nor paradoxical.
For political reasons you support denial of climate change science.
Correct?
That’s false.
You support Trump right? Or, in the alternative, if you disagree with him, tell us why...
Look, I’ve given you enough chances to return back to the topic. Any time you want to do so I’ll be interested in a conversation, but the hostility and harassment is not worth the effort.
Sorry you need to put your big boy pants on because I'm going to call you out when I see hypocrisy.
So are you saying you are unable to answer the question about politicizing climate change science? Is that what you're telling me?
You invented the hypocrisy and now are wasting your own time trying to call others out on it. Sorry, you need to use your big boy arguments.
Ignoring the question won't make it go away. Your credibility is lacking for two reasons:
1. You won't provide public policy/supporting data about your T-shirt rant relative to employment standards.
2. You attack political correctness in science, yet politically deny climate change science.
With respect to item 2 what I'm hearing from you is that essentially you are not trying to remove politics from science.
Matt Taylor probably works as a public official. And, even if he wasn't a public official, he is in the public eye by virtue of his position. You should provide data to show public policy and human resource criteria that support your argument for appropriate/inappropriate dress/attire.
Otherwise, what he was wearing was, inappropriate, knowing he would be exposed to national television or otherwise the public eye?
For example, provide data from a Sociological view that supports your view that the T-shirt was reasonable and appropriate for the venue. Acting reasonable requires treating like cases likely; different cases differently. Thus, if one attends a black tie event with a t-shirt; if one attends a wedding with soiled clothing, if one forgets to insert their false teeth giving a speech to the public, if one wears a speedo with a Harley jacket to the beach, ad nauseum.
As I said, in the case of the astronomer Matt Taylor, it's actually irresponsible, for a trained professional to act unprofessional by wearing a sexually charged t-shirt in the given context. If the dude wanted to just wear a t-shirt, why didn't it relate to his profession, like a shirt with the Solar system/planet's on it or something??
About the question of hypocrisy, are you saying you are unable to answer the question about politicizing climate change science?
tick-toc-tick-toc
My point is that he can pick and choose what attire he deems appropriate, and it is neither up to me or you to do it for him. Your frigidity around clothing is direct evidence not of Taylor’s irresponsibility, but of your own opinion, nothing more. And given that he landed a spacecraft on a comet despite the shirt renders your opinion moot.
No he can't, if it's not in his employer's dress code job description. Otherwise it's common sense- reasonableness as to the appropriateness.
The dude obviously did something bone headed that's why in part he cried and apologized.
Put a quarter in and try again LOL!
Oh BTW, I'm still awaiting for you to resolve your 'hypocritical paradox' on climate change science. Let us know when you're brave enough to tackle that one!
Tick-toc-tick-toc
He can and he did, and landed a spacecraft on the nucleus of a comet while doing so. While you shush him and wag your finger he’s advancing the world forward. That’s why this sort of political correctness is laughable.
I’m open to all climate science. What I’m not open to is the intolerance and bigotry towards sceptics of it.
Your argument is like saying vigilantism. should be endorsed and made legal. In other words, you don't care about the means, just the end.
Try that working for government and you'll soon be out of a job my friend. Your so-called idealism might work in the private sector, but when you are a public servant, many things require PC.
Like I say, it's common sense human resource stuff. Work for a big global corporation and you better adhere to their PC. What don't you get about that?
Many, if not most, people on this forum lack consistent credibility (including Baden and yourself) which has greatly diminished the impact of their arguments across the board. Meaning, you have both said things that are inconsistent across many different threads because it is difficult to integrate all of your knowledge together into a consistent whole. You have both said things that are illogical, like using ad hominems because you don't like what someone is "ranting" about. Attack argument being made, not the person making it or some other argument that they haven't made (straw-manning).
I've already provided the answer to the question in the OP, so I don't see what else there is to "rant" about from either side - that is unless you want to go off-topic and talk about NOS4A2's "inconsistencies". Maybe you might want to start another thread on that because this thread isn't about that.
Please feel free to share my inconsistencies... ?
I'm happy to stand corrected.
So political correctness isn't political or what? I'm not sure what you mean.
Vigilantism should be made legal? I’ve made nothing close to that argument. In other words, you don’t care to properly represent your opponent’s argument.
There nothing that is political that is correct. Science determines what is correct.
Science also doesn't answer normative questions. Objectivity isn't a cure for everything.
Oh I agree totally with you, Harry.
Yet we have to answer questions about ethics. Even if we cannot escape our subjectivity, the questions are many times very important and leaving them unanswered is a choice that can have serious consequences. Many times we have to answer political (and ethical) questions even if we wouldn't want to.
When NOS4A2 talks about political correctness, we cannot avoid the political aspect of it. That's my point.
Right. Since its subjective, the answers will be subjective. Search yourself, not this forum, for the answers to your political / ethical questions, and don't bother posting your answers because they will only be applicable to you.
When political correctness is brought up it is usually to point out where politics is putting its nose into business it shouldn't.
Oh to just me?
And you have the correc / true subjective point of view or what?
Or moral ethics isn't worth a debate in PF? That your line?
What makes you think any ethical/political answers you have would be applicable to anyone else?
How do you know anything about me to know that what is good for you is good for me?
I rarely participate in ethical or political debates because there are no objective answers. Why would I be interested in answers that only work for you (ethical - subjective)? If they work for me and others, then the answers are more about the world (scientific - being the same species (sociobiology) and members of the same culture and environment (geography) - objective), and not just about you.