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):
Juan P. Madrid is an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.
The piece begins by describing a collision that will take place, 4 to 7 billion years hence, between the Milky Way and its closest galaxy, Andromeda. Immediately the word “collision” is seen as triggering. One of Madrid’s students described the future collision instead as “a giant galactic hug.” But the person who sent me this link added this comment:
My wife says that if Andromeda doesn’t want the Milky Way to hug her then it’s interstellar sexual assault.
Indeed! But Madrid hastens to instruct us why using “collision” is not only grating, but misleading:
The kindness, but also the accuracy, of the language my student used was in sharp contrast to the standard description we use in astronomy to explain the final destiny of Andromeda and the Milky Way: “a collision.” But as astronomers have predicted, when Andromeda and the Milky Way finally meet, their stars will entwine and create a larger cosmic structure, a process that is more creating than destroying, which is what we envision when we use the term collision. A galactic hug is scientifically truthful, and it’s led me to believe that astronomers should reconsider the language we use.
First of all “collision” doesn’t mean “destroying”, but simply two objects hitting each other. In this case, two galaxies “collide”, but their stars are spread so far apart that they’ll simply merge into one big galaxy and star will not hit star. You could say “merge” instead of “collide”, but that also implies that perhaps the stars will absorb each other. If you want to convey the idea that “nothing gets banged up,” then, Madrid suggests using “galactic hug”. He actually wants astronomers, their classes, and their textbooks, to adopt this new, kind, and romantic term. (There are, of course, more salacious terms that could be used.) But they won’t be because they sound dumb, and in fact “galactic hug” is just as inaccurate as the other terms, for “hug” implies that there is some mutual enfolding, when in fact, the entities merge and do not remain separate, as humans do when they have a (temporary) hug. When Fred and Sue hug each other, they don’t merge into one person. . .
And so Madrid, combing the literature for other terms that are jarring and, he says, misleading, finds more, as of course he would. (You can do this in any field of biology, chemistry. or physics; all you need is a sufficiently diligent Pecksniff). I’ve singled out Madrid’s instances of bad language below by adding my own links, and putting those words in bold.
For instance, in galaxy evolution we invoke imagery strikingly similar to what you would expect if you were eavesdropping on Hannibal Lecter: words like cannibalism, harassment [JAC: no instance found], starvation, strangulation, stripping or suffocation. There is a rather long list of foul analogies that have entered, and are now entrenched, in the lexicon of professional astronomy. We have grown accustomed to this violent language and as a community, we seldom question or reflect on its use.
Strangulation is a particularly cringeworthy term in astronomy, referring to the decline of the number of stars born in some types of galaxies. This is a vicious crime where most often the victim is a woman; the perpetrator, a man. Yet, we use this word mindlessly to describe a slow astronomical process that takes millions of years. Under certain conditions, some galaxies use up or lose the gas that is the primordial ingredient to form stars. When that happens, galaxies make new stars at a lower rate. But these galaxies do not die or suffer great harm. They will continue to shine and will live their natural evolution.
This is but one of many examples of violent language in our field that actually describes something gradual, slow and perhaps even gentle.
Madrid was savvy enough to impute misogyny to one of these terms: “strangulation”, giving some woke heft to his thesis. But if you look at how the terms are used, only someone who wants to be offended would be. Moreover, they are not inaccurate. “Starvation“, for example, refers to something that cuts off the flow of gas that galaxies need for new star formation. I don’t find it inaccurate at all. In fact, none of these terms are inaccurate—what Madrid really objects to is that they are “triggering” and “unwelcoming”. He tries to sell his campaign to deep-six these terms as being “untruthful”, because he doesn’t want to look like an ideologue, but I’m not buying it. Also he allows “explosion” for the creation of a supernova, in most cases he finds this language “needlessly vicious and [promoting] inaccurate connotations.”
In short, Madrid finds this language triggering, for that’s the only explanation for why we should avoid this kind of “vicious” language. And, as he says below,
The use of hypercharged words in our field ignores the fact that this violent imagery can trigger distress in colleagues who might have been victims of violence.
But there are two points to be made here. First, as I noted in a recent post, giving the relevant studies, “Trigger warnings don’t work” and can even cause more trauma. There is no evidence that using this sort of language somehow harms the students. In fact, the remedy for those who are traumatized by certain words is not to avoid exposure to them, but to learn to not be upset when you are exposed. There is therapy for this.
Second, as is so often the case in these screeds, Madrid gives no examples of how the “bad language” upsets people. He should be able to produce at least a dozen cases on the spot, like “Jane got upset and left the class when she heard the word ‘strangulation'”, or “Bob reported Professor Basement Cat to the university for using the term ‘cannibalism’ on the astronomy exam, which, he said, made him think of the Donner Party and prevented him from completing the exam.” In nearly all of these language-policing articles, there is a surfeit of outrage and a dearth of examples or evidence of harm.
But Madrid circumvents the lack of evidence and simply suggests ways that we can censor this language, again pretending he’s interested mainly in scientific truth:
To shift toward more welcoming and truthful language in astronomy, scientific journals can push to change the currently accepted language. The referee, or the scientific editor, can ask the authors to consider more appropriate descriptions of the physical processes involved. Referees, editors and editorial boards can step up to enforce scientific accuracy and stop the use of violent, misogynistic language that is now pervasive. This is a call for scientific precision. The use of hypercharged words in our field ignores the fact that this violent imagery can trigger distress in colleagues who might have been victims of violence.
“Can”, “could have”, “might have”. Where are the examples of this? The sweating professor gives none. And isn’t it amazing that the more accurate language is always the kinder language?
And, as expected, Madrid manages to drag race, inclusion, and diversity into his discussion, even though none of the terms above have anything to do with race. And this belies his faux concern mainly for scientific accuracy:
As astronomers, we must strive to create a more inclusive and diverse community that reflects the composition of our society. Valuable efforts to provide opportunities for women and minorities to succeed in astronomy have been created. However, by many metrics, the progress made towards gender equality and true diversity has been painfully slow.
We must listen to the new generation of astronomers. My student showed me that while some astronomical processes can be intense, the universe revealed through astronomy provides us with the most fascinating sights known to humankind. Like many other young scientists, she thinks that when we explain astronomical phenomena with wording and phrases that share our excitement and appreciation, it also encourages others to join in and wonder what else we can discover together.
The universe is beautiful, elegant and ever-changing. Astronomy would be wise to follow its lead.
And so, in the end, we see that this kind of misguided effort, concentrating on words rather than science itself, is part of the corruption that has entered science via DEI and its ideology. What we have is one more attempt to control thought by controlling language.
There is no evidence that minorities and women are being kept out of astronomy because they don’t find its language “inclusive,”, though that’s really the thesis of Madrid’s piece. But the very idea that this thesis is true is laughable. Promoting the idea that galaxies hug each other is not going to bring people pouring into astronomy.
Once again Scientific American, trying to ride the woke bandwagon, has fallen off the train. Blame not only the author, but the editor, who actually approved this nonsense.
What in the world is Laura Helmuth thinking? This might be the dumbest thing I’ve seen all week. Hope “dumb” isn’t triggering for anyone.
I’m shaking and crying because I’ve never been able to speak.
If so all dumb waiters will have to be renamed, “ discreet service elevators” perhaphs? Gosh whatever next?
rather: “distinguished conveyors of divine comestibles”
😋
Lazy Susan is going to get a wake-up … cattle prod.
I lack the ability to speak, and I am offended at the use of the word ”dumb”.
Our civilization is doomed…
I’m triggered by your use of the word “doomed”.
I’m doomed by your use of the word “triggered”.
In the words of Charlie Brown, “Good grief!”.
There is therapy for that. Introductory price for first five sessions. Free initial consultation. Limited-time offer.
Don’t anyone tell poor sensitive Professor Madrid that astronomers refer to smaller stars as dwarf stars. That will only set him off again.
OMG. He missed that. It’s a slur on the “height-challenged”.
What about the “Red Giants?” Very very scary! Oh dear never mind,
and white dwarfs? isn’t this racist? Black holes, what are you implying? Black widow? is this about spider or genocide of black males?
That’s what I was expecting the SA to be beefing about, not the need for “collision” to be replaced by “galactic hug”. Looks like the magazine is going to be circling the drain for as long as debris at the event horizon of a black hole. [Presuming that I can say black hole nowadays, of course.]
In woke astrophysics, the correct term is “proud hole of color”! 😉
and not only that but “white dwarfs”…blatant racism !
All white dwarves are expected to become black dwarves with time.
Except, of course, for those which become Hawking stars – “Great White Saviour” theory in operation again.
White dwarf privilege that once again proves that astronomy is racist. Inanimate matter must be triggered and very offended.
Jimbo’s Rule: If you are triggered by offensive terms in science and feel obligated to police words (which accomplishes nothing) rather than actually advancing science, just remember that “trigger(ing)” is a violent gun reference with connotations of being shot so all such concerns may be ignored.
+1
Has this guy run out of any actual astronomy he could be doing?
As I understand it, in the American system and “associate professor” would normally be teaching course materials set by a “full” professor. They might have some time allocated for research, but mostly they’re blackboard fodder.
What makes you think he’s actually doing any.
Someone should tell Helmuth “You can stick this nonsense up the seventh planet from the Sun!”
🤣
You are certainly correct in comparing this to an article from the Onion. Wonder why the term “Black Hole” wasn’t the list.
Just when I thought things couldn’t get more stupid!
How dare you use such an antiquated, cisnormative set of hypothetical huggers as “Jim and Sue.” You’re clearly a homophobe. And since those are primarily Colonizer names, you must be a racist, too.
When I get out of the fetal position that your semantic violence caused me to be in, I’m going to find somewhere to report you!
:o)
“Galactic Hug” sounds like there’s going to be a huge increase in pressure — the stars will not entwine, they’ll be squeezed until they implode. It’s not reassuring.
When I try to imagine minorities which can’t handle astronomy because they’re triggered by words like “collision,” I am not imagining competent adults of sound mind.
You can’t say ‘implode’ .. it should be ‘gently deflate’
Ironically, during a star talk this evening in the Australian outback, I pointed out Andromeda 2.5 million light years away as the furthest thing you can see with the naked eye.
Alas, I also mentioned that it is moving towards us at 400,000KPH and will ‘collide’ with our galaxy in about 4-5 billion years. Thankfully no one seemed unduly traumatized by my reckless language. I am likewise grateful that mentioning ‘white dwarves’ and ‘black holes’ didn’t stir up any adverse reactions.
In fact, in three years of doing these talks, I don’t recall anyone being ‘triggered’. It’s almost as if the woke pronouncements of Madrid and his ilk are completely irrelevant to the real world. Could it be?
It’s almost as if universities and grant agencies require faculty members to demonstrate commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion in tenure reviews and grant proposals.
Isn’t strangulation, suffocation, and stripping all elements of kink culture?
Shouldn’t astronomy celebrate and champion marginalized Queer identities and Diverse sexualities? Especially when the power of hegemony has prevented the rights to unique and diverse experiences in transforming the self?
[ LOL too much fun!…. ]
[ weeps ]
Gasp! Scientific American is kink-shaming!
Is ‘trigger’ not triggering for some people? It really is a minefiel…oh no!
I’ve long thought that this kind of applied postmodernism will be the death of metaphorical language.
As others note, the article unaccountably omits mention of many other triggering or neocolonial Astronomy terms: white dwarf, gas giant, red giant, field star, black hole, dark matter, substar, superior and inferior planets, perturbation, etc. etc. Moreover, the very names found in Astronomy—Lagrange, Laplace, Kuiper, Hubble, Webb, etc. etc., refer mostly to dead white men and are therefore not inclusive. The only real solution is to abolish Astronomy altogether, and replace it with a less triggering subject,
such as Critical Out There Studies. Professor Madrid is presumably leading the way, by doing articles like this rather than doing Astronomy.
I’m surprised that animal rights activists don’t demand that we charge the name of Orion, the Hunter.
“Critical Out There Studies” 😀
OK. We can use “nicer” words in the future. Fortunately this isn’t substantively as bad as asking to change the established technical names of things.
On the axis from irrelevant to vital, this word game strikes me as just a tick above irrelevant. Why would a person spend valuable time searching for un-nice words and writing about them? And, why would Scientific American publish something that is just tick above irrelevant?
On a related note, the print magazine seems to have much less of this nonsense, as if Helmuth thinks of the print magazine as being on the record and the online stuff as ephemeral and less worthy. If she thinks of the online stuff as less valuable, then Madrid’s piece is an excellent exponent of the genre.
Maybe it’s a joke?
I think the whole magazine is a joke (to be sure, there are good articles, but the general quality has dropped).
If we’re really opposed to violent images, we’ll have to ban half the shows on Netflix and three quarters of those on amazon prime.
Hey, how about wave-function “collapse”? Maybe some folks have been in a collapsing building.
Drawn together by their mutual attraction, the galaxies kissed. One thing led to another and …
🤣🤣🤣
Don’t you start…
You see when two galaxies love one another very much, they have a special hug…
… parts of both galaxies were ripped off and ejected into the outer dark, never to return.
(Do external images link here? I can’t remember.)
It is possible that the Assistant Professor is coming up for tenure, and they need to demonstrate significant DEI-slanted scholarship.
I wish that were funny. Seems like a distinct possibility to me.
Andromeda is approaching the Milky Way at over 100 km/sec. While the two bodies are diffuse, they still have internal structures maintained by gravity and their rotations, and produce magnetic fields that depend upon their structures. Having one impact upon the other, even at astronomically slow speeds, will still produce a sudden considerable effect on the structures of both. And at a finer scale, there will be stars and star clusters, moving in different directions and at different speeds, interacting. Not to mention interstellar shock waves propagated through gas clouds.
So yeah, there’ll be a lot of slow-motion violence over vast scales. “Collision” is appropriate.
Which is why I just (tried) to link to an image of “the Mice”.
I wonder if he will look back on his life at some age and realize how he spent it and how he obsessed himself with his renaming campaign. What a fate and not an accomplishment!
Considering that it’s an “Opinion” piece, and that science does not progress via S.A. but by peer reviewed journal publications, the editors might be getting out of the piece what they expected/wanted, …maybe more?
Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean. Of course they got out of the piece what they wanted, which was to infiltrate wokeness into science and police language.
The purpose of SA was supposed to be educate the public about science, not push an ideology down their throats.
Juan P. Madrid has produced some crazy ideas in this article. Maybe this is a covert operation to get astronomers to vote for Trump. He He
We still find, especially in parts of academe, the damaging notion that everything is a struggle for power, or being empowered, or hegemony, or oppression: and that all competition is a zero-sum game. This is not more than repetition of Lenin’s destructive doctrine. Intellectually, it is reductionism; politically, it is fanaticism.
Robert Conquest
The universe IS violent, to us fragile living creatures; why even the living universe on this planet is pretty violent. The experience of illness, injury, hunger, freezing nights and winters, was what triggered our invention of science in the first place.
It’s probably already been put up but:
“Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt,” – Christopher Hitchens.
There we have it again: Oppressive language is violence (T. Morrison) & knowledge is power (M. Foucault).
Anyway, the author doesn’t seem to know the difference between the literal and the nonliteral use of words. For example, when we speak of the birth or death of stars, we obviously use these words metaphorically, and without any intention to deny the “lived experience” of human persons who are giving birth or dying.
While I am not offended by the language of astronomy currently in use, I do find it quite annoying to see biological terms used to describe non-biological phenomena. Personally, I would prefer to read about a black hole absorbing matter, not “eating” or “dining”.
I am terribly sorry that you are “quite annoyed” by using biological terms for physical phenomena. I presume that other terms like “Chewing the fat” or “swallowing his pride” also annoys you. You must spend a lot of time being annoyed!
Writers are always trying to come up with vivid ways to describe various natural and man-made phenomena, especially with metaphors and other figures of speech for a popular audience that doesn’t have the background to understand how a black hole, itself a metaphor, “absorbs” matter and energy. The only sin these figures of speech commit is that they become hackneyed after a startlingly brief time if overused, even the ones that started out vivid and fresh.
I would put most of the figures used in sociology, political activism, business, and bureaucracy in this pile because they try to make pedestrian concepts sound exciting or obscure or they mislead the reader as to what the organization is really up to. They should be punctured and deflated. I would cut some slack to writers sincerely trying to explain scientific concepts and developments to lay audiences. Your annoyance I think is misplaced here.
1) Most know what the large Magellanic Cloud is. Few know what ESO 56- G 115 or PGC 17223 are. Yet the latter two are more “inclusive”.
2) There is an opening scene of the movie Idiocracy where the narrator says most scientists are researching erectile dysfunction. I.e. Instead of tackling the greatest issues facing mankind, scientists are focusing on inconsequential things. I can’t help but feel we are approaching Idiocracy.
First the schools/colleges, then the medical associations, and now Scientific American………watch out if they force the airline industry to employ unskilled pilots in order to meet a DEI quota!
If our military has been “woked”, I would anticipate a major loss the first major battle we get into. (General Marshall had to relieve lots of “generals” at the start of WWII because they were unprepared)
Galactic hug. *eyeroll*
So do galaxies have to have spiral *arms* in order to hug? How can you leave elliptical galaxies out of this in the name of inclusivity? 😉
With as often as I’ve taught astronomy, I have never run into the term strangulation in an astronomical context. I get that if you’ve had a close personal issue with those terms, it might not be pleasant to hear or use them. But….context. Folks don’t mean anything harmful by those words. There are *way* too many terms that could potentially be triggering to ban them all.
The asteroid causing the K/T event didn’t collide with earth? I suppose mass extinctions are just transformations? I am sure the black spots on Jupiter on asteroid impact, excuse me “embrace” are non-violent events. Sure.
When the gravitational wells of Andromeda’s stars and black holes get close enough to influence those of ours, someone will get to see how empty space is. Or any intelligent cockroaches or mantids that remain several million years from now will anyway.
I assume then, that the author would also agree that, for example, the NBA and the NFL “must strive to create a more inclusive and diverse community that reflects the composition of our society.”