It is a non-scientific vague term for a goal. Using another phrase for it does not hide information. I see that some people have definitions, again vague ones, distinguishing between 'advantage' and 'supremacy'. But neither of these terms is technical, yet, or specific. There is no loss of information using different phrases that mean the same things. We will not hide the fact that quantum computers, if they do things qualitatively different from classic ones, are capable of certain functions if we use different words for this.

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.

I think if supremacy can be considered a problem because it “risks sustaining divisions in race, gender and class.”, then one day the word “advantage” will be considered a problem. The word advantage still means superior.

Does it follow, then, that “supremacy” should be banned from use?

I'm not sure that dithering over "quantum supremacy" even qualifies as political correctness. It's not even wrong. It's nonsensical.

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.

Political correctness and the use of euphemism in science has nothing to do with politics. Political correctness is reviled by both left and right. — NOS4A2

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.

Should Science be politically correct? — NOS4A2

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. )

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. — NOS4A2

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.

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.

That’s not true. Most Americans at least oppose it, right and left young and old, and every shade of color.

Most members of the “exhausted majority,” and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.

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.

My point is that science should remain ideology-free and scientists should have free reign to use the words they see fit. — NOS4A2

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)?

I wonder what political science has to comment about politics in science now that everything under the sun seems to be in the race to achieve scientific status or thereabouts.

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.

1) If a scientific fact was politically explosive, would obscuring it be justified? (Could political correctness ever take precedence over scientific truth?)
2) Is there any specific instance of a scientific fact where this has taken place?

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)? — Baden

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:

In November 2018, media from all over the world reported that two twin girls had been born with modified genes to make them HIV immune. Their birth was the result of an ‘experiment' (presently it can only be called that) conducted by He Jiankui with couples in which the males were HIV carriers. Using CRISPR technology to immunise the babies against the HIV virus, He Jiankui managed to disable the CCR5 gene that enables the HIV infection (although he still did not present complete evidence of this achievement).

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 has been derided by pundits from all over the spectrum. — NOS4A2

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.

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. — Baden

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.

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). — 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?

Political correctness... has nothing to do with politics. — NOS4A2

: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?

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.

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.

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”. — NOS4A2

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?

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.

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. — NOS4A2

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!

Are you saying that if a woman wore trousers with sexually charged graphics that that would be appropriate?

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?

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.