4 ms·
I can see the point, but I don't think it's a problem as long as the concept is well-defined. It's only a matter of getting used to don't assume, for example, "
by MzxgckZtNqX5i 7y ago
I can see the point, but I don't think it's a problem as long as the concept is well-defined.
It's only a matter of getting used to don't assume, for example, "open" and "closed" to be mutually exclusive.
There are other fields that don't have the privilege of this formal setting: I expect the concept of "species" to be very important in biology, but there isn't a clear definition of that (yet) [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition
- IshKebab 7y agoThe problem is that it requires extra mental effort for zero benefit. For example if I tell you that cos(x) is a symmetric function and sin(x) is antisymmetric, the meaning is far more obvious than if I tell you one is odd and the other is even. It costs you time looking the words up and energy remembering them. Species doesn't have an exactly bounded definition because it is not an exactly bounded thing. It's like trying to define "life". This doesn't really have anything to do with bad jargon though so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
- they4kman 7y agoA confusing vocabulary kills the curiosity of casual observers — those who'd gain the greatest joy from seeing how seemingly separate concepts coalesce. The world is an endless adventure in ever-expanding tendrils of interest, if not gated by rote.
- vharuck 7y agoIt can prevent the concepts from being used outside of experts in a particular academic field. A personal computer's "file system" is a nice concept tech-illiterate people can understand and use, and it's unquestionably proven a useful metaphor. Even though it falls apart in certain cases, it works pretty well for most.