I accept it in colloquial discourse. I’m not happy about it, and I will smartass at everyone who isn’t asking, but I accept that I’m probably fighting a losing battle. But in science, it’s absolutely non-negotiable for words to mean what they mean, and not their own opposite.
Comment on I definitely never unsubscribed from a YouTube channel just for that...
2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Descriptive linguists unite! Words evolve and that’s okay. Really science should pivot away and start calling more proven theories a different word if they’re upset about the confusion.
The etymology of the word theory comes from meaning more in line with “to look at or speculate” so even in that sense science kind of hijacked a word that was less inline with the modern scientific understanding of the word “theory” and descriptively transformed it themselves for use in their community. And that’s okay too.
dogsoahC@lemm.ee 4 months ago
frezik@midwest.social 4 months ago
Various fields have to adapt their terms all the time. For example, “idiot”, “moron”, and “mental retardation” were all official medical terms. Then they got used as an insult, and got so bad that the medical field had to abandon them.
dogsoahC@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Medical terms being used as an insult is a very specific (and problematic) case. And they also weren’t turned into their own opposite. They were equalized with stupidity.
2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Tell that to conventional current vs electron flow. Science is ever updating with new information and the words we use to describe it will change over time as well, but I get what you mean. Prescriptive linguistics especially in formal settings like scientific writing is helpful for clear communication.
MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 4 months ago
Counterpoint:
The language of science is specific because it is beneficial to have standards that allow explicit specificity. Scientific linguistics evolve differently from the way colloquial linguistics evolves due to different motivations and this difference is okay.
The real problem isn’t that scientific language is too strict but that we gatekeep scientific participation in every form, preventing most people from participating in such a way that scientific communication is not confusing. This is in addition to most scientific publications being unnecessarily written in inaccessible language. Specificity is helpful, but the excessive use of jargon and buzz-words to make yourself sound smarter through obtuse language is unhelpful for everyone involved. When jargon cannot be avoided, define it. If you cannot define it, reference a definition.
Clarity and accessibility in all scientific communication is the key to understanding.
tehmics@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’ve ranted about this so much to people close to me. Scientific community just needs to adopt a new word like you say, theory is a lost battle
Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Would courses like Music Theory also need to get a new name?