3 ms·

Could we please have a veto in the popular press on the use of the word "organic" to describe carbon-containing molecules? I'm pretty sure "organic" has an ent

by Osmium 11y ago

Could we please have a veto in the popular press on the use of the word "organic" to describe carbon-containing molecules? I'm pretty sure "organic" has an entirely different meaning to most of the population, and it's not helping anyone...

bonzini 11y ago
I'm sure organic chemistry was named before organic food... In fact, organic food is known in some other countries as "from biological agriculture" (often abbreviated to "bio food").
- mc808 11y ago
  But that further supports the idea that people generally link "organic" to "biological". Note they're not calling it "carbon-containing food".
- Osmium 11y ago
  This isn't a question of who's technically "right" or "wrong". I'm not suggesting we stop using the word in textbooks or the classroom. It's just simply, by modern popular usage, misleading to use the word "organic" in mainstream news articles about carbon-containing molecules. It gives people the wrong idea.
  - Zogulous 11y ago
    Changing what something has been called for a long time because the word has (relatively) recently been coopted to mean something else sounds like a really bad idea to me.
    - Osmium 11y ago
      > Changing what something has been called for a long time because the word has (relatively) recently been coopted to mean something else sounds like a really bad idea to me. It's how language change works though. Very few words still mean what they meant several hundred (or even tens of) years ago. The people who write dictionaries are perfectly pragmatic about this. What is the aim of journalism on a mainstream news website? To communicate? If you want to communicate with someone who doesn't have a science background, a member of the public, you have to be sensible about it. So what's the alternative to "organic" in that context? "Carbon-containing"? The latter is far less misleading to the average person. And to people who understand both, either works. So why wouldn't you want to do that? It's pure stubbornness on behalf of scientists (and I say that as a professional scientist myself) to be prescriptivist about this sort of thing. And, again, I'm not suggesting we stop using the word in technical contexts (the classroom, textbooks, journals, etc.). It's just that I've been at a few outreach events recently, and I talk to people casually a lot, and so many people read "organic" in a headline and think "signs of life" that it's obscene. It's a real problem. We can either choose to try and communicate better, or we can carry on misleading people–because we are misleading them, whether we like it or not. Burying our heads in the sand and just pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone.

by Osmium 11y ago

bonzini 11y ago

I'm sure organic chemistry was named before organic food... In fact, organic food is known in some other countries as "from biological agriculture" (often abbreviated to "bio food").

mc808 11y ago
But that further supports the idea that people generally link "organic" to "biological". Note they're not calling it "carbon-containing food".
Osmium 11y ago
This isn't a question of who's technically "right" or "wrong". I'm not suggesting we stop using the word in textbooks or the classroom. It's just simply, by modern popular usage, misleading to use the word "organic" in mainstream news articles about carbon-containing molecules. It gives people the wrong idea.
- Zogulous 11y ago
  Changing what something has been called for a long time because the word has (relatively) recently been coopted to mean something else sounds like a really bad idea to me.
  - Osmium 11y ago
    > Changing what something has been called for a long time because the word has (relatively) recently been coopted to mean something else sounds like a really bad idea to me. It's how language change works though. Very few words still mean what they meant several hundred (or even tens of) years ago. The people who write dictionaries are perfectly pragmatic about this. What is the aim of journalism on a mainstream news website? To communicate? If you want to communicate with someone who doesn't have a science background, a member of the public, you have to be sensible about it. So what's the alternative to "organic" in that context? "Carbon-containing"? The latter is far less misleading to the average person. And to people who understand both, either works. So why wouldn't you want to do that? It's pure stubbornness on behalf of scientists (and I say that as a professional scientist myself) to be prescriptivist about this sort of thing. And, again, I'm not suggesting we stop using the word in technical contexts (the classroom, textbooks, journals, etc.). It's just that I've been at a few outreach events recently, and I talk to people casually a lot, and so many people read "organic" in a headline and think "signs of life" that it's obscene. It's a real problem. We can either choose to try and communicate better, or we can carry on misleading people–because we are misleading them, whether we like it or not. Burying our heads in the sand and just pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone.