A society that elects to apply an existing term to cases in which it doesn't quite fit indicates the society is linguistically bankrupt. I'd argue that, instead

A society that elects to apply an existing term to cases in which it doesn't quite fit indicates the society is linguistically bankrupt. I'd argue that, instead of calling every profession "engineering" we ought to come up with more precise distinctions and designations. Let's be honest, the main reason so many people glom on to the term "engineer" is because (as others have mentioned) the rigorous processes around licensing for other engineering disciplines keeps supply low, which attaches an inherent market value to the term. People then adopt the term without justification in the hope if nets them a pay raise. We ought to accept that it's OK not to be an engineer. Other professions are also valuable. It's also important to "gatekeep" meanings of words to a certain extent lest we think it wise to accept a language in which any word can mean anything.