Seems pretty nit-picky considering:

Why is that stupid, subby? I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain the difference between a scientific theory and some random person's musings that they call a theory. Gravity is a theory, ferfuxake, but no one goes around saying that maybe it's actually Intelligent Attraction to the Earth.

Pancoaifo: Or subby doesn't like that scientists have a dialect of their own used for precision accuracy and expediency.

FTFY

jigger: Gravity is not a theory, it is a force. There are theories of gravity that try to explain it. There are also laws of gravity that mathematically describe its action.

It's better to use "number theory" when making that point anyway. One can say things like "number theory proved that" and such as.

My brain needs re-wiring. I thought it was some some comical pick n mix chart where any word from each column could be used to make a stupid sentence to mock scientists. I spend a few seconds analysing "enhance spray can upward trend", before I realised I should read the title and column headers.

In my defence it's because the first thing my brain saw was "aerosol spray can intensify", which is why it thought it was the pick n mix chart.

Smidge204: Here's a suggestion for the list:

Scientific term: "Trick"
Public meaning: "Thing whores do"
Better term: "ILLUSION!"



^{/Couldn't resist}

I like to convince random people that when the temperature is 0f it's called "Absolute Zero".

I hope some of them use that at dinner parties.

Kome: There's a new paper up in Physics Today, which argues that it's the responsibility of all scientists to think about the colloquial meanings of words and talk in a way the public can understand.

I would argue that it's the responsibility of the general public to not be scientifically illiterate.

While that is what we want, I don't think it's practical. It would be easier to have the smaller group (the scientists) simply recognize who their audience is, and speak to them in a language they can understand.

It's common in forensics (we have to speak to jury members, and explain complex topics to a group with an average education level of 5th grade). I've also seen it with public projects, particularly in the toxicology field. Toxicologists have to sooth public concerns, and explain the science behind what's going on.

We can't just assume our audience knows what we're talking about, especially when the majority in the audience doesn't have anywhere near our level of education. The point is to be clearly understood so that knowledge can be gained, and if our words are being confused then it's our fault for not speaking to our audience correctly.

Note: This only applies when we're directly addressing the public. When we're addressing other scientists, such as in journals, then we use scientific terms, and it's on the individual reading our paper to know the terminology.

Kome: I know. I'm just bitter that, at least in the US, scientific literacy in particular (and education in general) is so undervalued that simple words and phrases like "theory" or "positive feedback" are misunderstood by such a large portion of the population. Science is fun. It's interesting. And, frankly, knowing some of it is getting more and more important.

I figured. I wrote it primarily for lurkers, and not so much to argue against you.

/There's a reason your posts show up in green.

th0th: In certain circles, accuracy and precision mean completely different things. I can be accurate (I hit the target nine times with this gun) but being precise (I hit the target nine times with this gun, 7 of which hit the bullseye) may not be the case.

I think you need a quick refresher yourself

th0th: I think you need a quick refresher in reading comprehension

That I do, the first few times I read it, I did not realize that you were including accuracy with precision in your second example

Scientists should not dumb-down literature for laypeople. It's the responsibility of the media to present the story in a way their audience can understand. Scientists have reasons for choosing the words they do in their technical writing and it isn't wise to throw that library of agreed-upon terminology away just because somebody outside of the field is unable to correctly understand it.