Ok, that's reasonable. Still, I think it is more than fair to assert that the ancilla example holds (much) less merit than the supremacy example. For one, I am willing to bet that very few people know the origins of the word ancilla (even in such a biased sample as the academic community) Indeed, I had trouble parsing the passage that you referenced, simply because of the use of the word. (We could test this hypothesis, though - let's encourage somebody to carry out a twitter poll...). Secondly, the word has been used much, much more in the literature, and as such has a very precise meaning tied to it, so if you're looking to change a word, this appears to be a poor candidate for that reason alone.
But much of this is beside the point. Clearly the claim is not that such words really have particular origins, but that the words themselves are capable of impacting science in a real and negative way. I'll admit that it isn't necessary to unambiguously demonstrate the truth of this claim before concluding that we should 'play it safe' and avoid the use of certain terms, but I'd like to see at least *some* evidence to show that the use of such words has any effect whatsoever (except on some sub-set of people looking to be offended).
Ok, that's reasonable. Still, I think it is more than fair to assert that the ancilla example holds (much) less merit than the supremacy example. For one, I am willing to bet that very few people know the origins of the word ancilla (even in such a biased sample as the academic community) Indeed, I had trouble parsing the passage that you referenced, simply because of the use of the word. (We could test this hypothesis, though - let's encourage somebody to carry out a twitter poll...). Secondly, the word has been used much, much more in the literature, so if you're looking to change a word, this appears to be a poor candidate for that reason alone.
But much of this is beside the point. Clearly the claim is not that such words really have particular origins, but that the words themselves are capable of impacting science in a real and negative way. I'll admit that it isn't necessary to unambiguously demonstrate the truth of this claim before concluding that we should 'play it safe' and avoid the use of certain terms, but I'd like to see at least *some* evidence to show that the use of such words has any effect whatsoever (except on some sub-set of people looking to be offended).
Ok, that's fair. Still, I think it is more than fair to assert that the ancilla example holds (much) less merit than the supremacy example. For one, I am willing to bet that very few people know the origins of the word ancilla (even in such a biased sample as the academic community) Indeed, I had trouble parsing the passage that you referenced, simply because of the use of the word. (We could test this hypothesis, though - let's encourage somebody to carry out a twitter poll...). Secondly, the word has been used much, much more in the literature, so if you're looking to change a word, this appears to be a poor candidate for that reason alone.
But much of this is beside the point. Clearly the claim is not that such words really have particular origins, but that the words themselves are capable of impacting science in a real and negative way. I'll admit that it isn't necessary to unambiguously demonstrate the truth of this claim before concluding that we should 'play it safe' and avoid the use of certain terms, but I'd like to see at least *some* evidence to show that the use of such words has any effect whatsoever (except on some sub-set of people looking to be offended).
Braneshop, and
the US National Science Foundation.
SciRate