3 ms·
Having been the norm for decades in that research area doesn't make the term significantly less misleading for everyday usage, though, right?
by gmac 3y ago
Having been the norm for decades in that research area doesn't make the term significantly less misleading for everyday usage, though, right?
- ppaattrriicckk 3y agoYeah, nah, I beg to differ: Just because the broader population might not (yet!) have an intuitive understanding of the field, and its shortcomings, I don't think we should rename decades of academic consensus. I have more faith in entire fields of research, at least. I can't make up a good counterexample, so here's a so-so one: Fusion vs. fission power. I've extremely rarely encountered the term "fission" outside of talks about fission power. Yet, I don't think we should call Fusion Power "Star-like energy generation" and Fission Power "never practically encountered power generation, but somewhat like star-like, except the opposite underlying mechanism"