• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Oh okay so they’re just redefining words that are already well-defined so they can make fancy claims.

    • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well-defined for casual use is very different than well-defined for scholarly research. It’s standard practice to take colloquial vocab and more narrowly define it for use within a scientific discipline. Sometimes different disciplines will narrowly define the same word two different ways, which makes interdisciplinary communication pretty funny.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s standard practice to take colloquial vocab and more narrowly define it for use within a scientific discipline.

        No. It’s not standard at all, especially when the goal is overtly misleading.

        Sometimes different disciplines will narrowly define the same word two different ways

        Maybe one or both disciplines is promoting bullshit.