3 ms·
> Choosing to continue the tradition of naming things in a way such that only a relatively small chunk of society would immediately understand their meaning is
by drunken-serval 8y ago
> Choosing to continue the tradition of naming things in a way such that only a relatively small chunk of society would immediately understand their meaning is something that I've never understood.
Jargon has its place. In regards to medical jargon, it serves as both a signal knowledge of medicine and pointing to a specific idea. Using plain language may or may not refer to the specific idea at hand and it definitely signals a lack of knowledge.
It's the same reason people who use computers say "cursor" instead of "pointy thing".
- TangoTrotFox 8y agoI don't think one signals knowledge by choice of vocabulary, but rather by what is said. If you've ever been pitched something in a field you're an expert in by an imposter, they're more than capable of talking the talk. It's the content of what is actually said where their fraud is exposed. It's not for a lack of knowledge of vernacular or even its misuse, but for lack of understanding the topic which they are discussing. By contrast if you translate e.g. Socrates to pidgin, I'm certain the wisdom would no doubt still resonate simply because of what is said and the logic behind it, regardless of how it is said. The precision is certainly a reasonable argument, yet that may be begging the question. The reason these words are more precise than alternatives is because these words are the ones chosen to associate with whatever 'thing' we might be referencing. Blue berry is hardly precise in terms of the words used, yet you know exactly what I am referencing with those words. Had we adopted such a tradition there we might find ourselves calling them vaccinium cyanococcus in a parallel dimension, and certainly there they would likely find the notion of blueberry to be an insufficiently precise alternative.