Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Scientific American proposes policing the language of astronomy to make it “beautiful and elegant”, as well as “inclusive” and non-triggering
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/01/0...riggering/

INTRO (Jerry Coyne): Oops! Scientific American did it again, this time with an op-ed that could have been ripped from the pages of The Onion.  As is so common these days, the piece proposes that we change the language of science (astronomy in this case), since some of its terms are bad in four ways:

•   a.  They are violent, sexist, and triggering
  
•   b. They are not “beautiful and elegant” like astronomy is, but grating; and they are “not kind”
  
•   c.  They are non-inclusive, presumably helping keep minorities out of astronomy.
  
•   d. They are untruthful and distort astronomy
  

In my view, none of these claims holds up, for the article is all Pecksniffian assertion with not a shred of evidence. Author Juan Madrid assumes the role of a bomb-sniffing dog, snuffling the field of astronomy for linguistic mines.

Click the headline below to read and weep, or find the piece archived here.  The author is identified this way (my link)... (MORE - details)

"Astronomy is beautiful and elegant. The language we use to describe its processes is anything but"

That's just crazy. 

“Man imagines the world itself to be overflowing with beauty - he forgets that he is the cause of it all.”—Nietzsche

There are areas with high levels of radiation, intense gravitational forces, extreme temperatures, and other inhospitable conditions, but it’s also indifferent. Hugging would be out the question.