I would actually say that beauty is more scientifically clear. The various quantum numbers of the quarks are real physical quantities, but not ones for which w

I would actually say that beauty is more scientifically clear. The various quantum numbers of the quarks are real physical quantities, but not ones for which we have a good way of conceptualizing in classical, macroscopic life. The up and down quarks aren't actually spinning, but they do kind of behave as if they were spinning, so their names make sense, but for the others there isn't even an analogue. Luckily no one expects to be able to visualize strangeness, and likewise charm and beauty convey quite well that the naming is arbitrary. Top and bottom on the other hand sound like they could refer to a "real" property, or perhaps represent two ends of a spectrum. While I've seen no evidence that confusion is rampant, it would be easy to see how confusion could arise. If anything, the Top quark should be renamed to something more whimsical, or both should be renamed to something more clearly arbitrary like heads and tails.