The importance of being pedant

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

At 12:47 PM -0700 7/21/99, William Beaty wrote:

> ...there's also a serious collision between scientific and common
> terminology.

We're not going to change that; it will always be present. We must
teach our students that the problem exists, and we should cleave
rigorously to the scientific vocabulary when speaking *ex cathedra*
or else append the expression "in the vulgar sense" to any error.
Someone decided a long time ago that the three common states of
matter were solid, liquid and vapor. That's canonical; there's no
good reason to change our terminology.

Outsiders may think us geeks for insisting (as we all do) on use of
the correct terms for energy and power. Who cares what they think?

If you want to rail against something, pick a phrase like "in
general". Scientifically it means "always, without exception" while
the vulgar interpretation implicitly stipulates the existence of
exceptions. The meanings are, in that sense, utterly opposite.

One reason for remaining true to the old terminology is that the
old literature remains accessible. Another is that misunderstandings
will not arise if both parties to a dialog are using the same
vocabulary*.

Leigh

*I once lost a half night's observing time at Kitt Peak because my
computer was interpreting my commands in the wrong vocabulary. Kitt
Peak at that time used a computer language called Forth for telescope
control. "Vocabulary" is a technical term in Forth which means just
about the same thing it means in common parlance. Fortunately a night
assistant showed me how to change the vocabulary before I lost the
whole night. Computers take direction much better than students do.