What is the most overused word in the field of Science?

[dipole]

What single word do you think is used in the widest range of contexts giving it many different meanings and leading to all sorts of possible confusion?

I'd vote on the word "phase".

 

[Pengwuino]

Proof.

I win.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

small

 

[micromass]

The scientific word that is most abused by non-scientists has got to be "quantum". We have quantum healing, quantum bracelets, quantum touch, quantum sounds, etc. None of these things has anything to do with quantum physics.

 

[rolerbe]

The scientific word that is most abused by non-scientists has got to be "quantum". We have quantum healing, quantum bracelets, quantum touch, quantum sounds, etc. None of these things has anything to do with quantum physics.

Yes, but it's only a phase.

 

[Andre]

"could" is the most beloved/abused word by alarmists. If X is true, the world, as we know it, 'could' be destroyed.

 

[arildno]

Flappers is right. It doesn't win, though, due to unwinworthiness.

 

[ZapperZ]

"Theory"

Zz.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh god, after reading the responses I think it's like asking which of my tomatoes in my garden looks the worse. How do you even pick a winner?

 

[micromass]

Oh god, after reading the responses I think it's like asking which of my tomatoes in my garden looks the worse. How do you even pick a winner?

I don't think that they even qualify as tomatoes. So the question is void.

 

[Dembadon]

What single word do you think is used in the widest range of contexts giving it many different meanings and leading to all sorts of possible confusion?

...

"Science."

 

[Chi Meson]

"Theory"

Zz.

I'm on record agreeing with this. We ought to ditch "theory" altogether since even scientists regularly use this to mean "conjecture" or "hypothesis."

Second place is "centrifugal force." Yes, I'm one of those guys.

 

[Ken Natton]

The scientific word that is most abused by non-scientists has got to be "quantum". We have quantum healing, quantum bracelets, quantum touch, quantum sounds, etc. None of these things has anything to do with quantum physics.

Hmmm. Interesting Micromass. I’m not sure from where you get the idea that the word ‘quantum’ is the exclusive preserve of science. The quantum of money, for example, is the penny, or the cent, or whatever is the smallest unit of money in your neck of the woods. The quantum of computer data, notwithstanding the Quantum Computer which is, I understand, something else all together, is the bit. I’m not convinced that the terms you refer to ever intended to bask in the reflected glory of the world of the quantum as referenced by physical science.

 

[Opus_723]

Energy. I have yet to meet a non-scientist who can define it in any meaningful way.

 

[Luke77]

Quantum! I have seen so many books and articles that say quantum has to do with peace or love or the meaning of life.

 

[Pengwuino]

I’m not convinced that the terms you refer to ever intended to bask in the reflected glory of the world of the quantum as referenced by physical science.

A fun past time in PF chat is finding all sorts of examples online of people doing just that, unfortunately.

 

[flatmaster]

Energy. I have yet to meet a non-scientist who can define it in any meaningful way.

I agree with this because this word actually has a myriad non-technical definitions. Just like power, force, et al.

 

[Containment]

Breakthrough every time I see this word used on a "new discovery" I'm like yeah right...

 

[Dr Transport]

quantum is good, but i am disgusted every time I hear I hear an engineer say "if we develop this technology, it will be a quantum leap"...

 

[Pengwuino]

quantum is good, but i am disgusted every time I hear I hear an engineer say "if we develop this technology, it will be a quantum leap"...

Maybe they're just being super honest and know their technology will only be a super small jump in technology :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll turn the tables for a moment since that's what I do.

Most abused in S&D... evidence. Scientific evidence is not the only form of evidence. Many times people will say there is no evidence for something, when there is, and sometimes a good bit of it, but there is no scientific evidence. The assumption here that we mean "scientific evidence" is understandable, but for the sake of accuracy, which is what this site is all about, I always felt the distinction should be made clear. I also see this error of omission applied in a wide variety of sceptical arguments generally.

 

[phinds]

nano - <ANYTHING>

 

[Dadface]

"Truth" as in promoting or even just implying that there are scientific concepts,theories,models and so on which are absolute immutable truths.

 

[denjay]

quantum is good, but i am disgusted every time I hear I hear an engineer say "if we develop this technology, it will be a quantum leap"...

I always thought of that phrase as meaning our knowledge will grew as much as it did on the discovery of quantum mechanics. It will leap forward as much as it did with quantum mechanics.

 

[genericusrnme]

super as in super-conducting-super-cooled-super-super-heated-super-fluid-super-solid-super-symmetric-super-collider

 

[Ryan_m_b]

nano - <ANYTHING>

Yes, yes a billion times yes.

 

[chiro]

Any abuse of all the above words and more for purposes of establishing false credibility.

Science, it's practitioners (scientists, engineers, and so on), and its reputation tend to always fall victim to bastardization of its use to establish twisted or blatantly false credibility for something.

Trust is a sacred thing, and for something like science, you do not want to turn science into something that people don't respect just for the sake of a nice promotion or a quick buck.

It's like everybody one day not trusting money: the chaos that ensues from this is the kind of thing that will happen if people stop believing in science, and it's a lot better to just stick to things that are genuine and credible so that this sort of thing doesn't happen.

 

[genericusrnme]

Trust is a sacred thing, and for something like science, you do not want to turn science into something that people don't respect just for the sake of a nice promotion or a quick buck.

I heard a guy, when I was waiting at a bus stop, talking with his friend about how science is a load of rubbish and how anyone can sit on their.. bottoms.. all day and come up with stupid theories.
I've heard this kind of thing before too so I don't think distrust in 'science' is as scarce as you think it is

 

[chiro]

I heard a guy, when I was waiting at a bus stop, talking with his friend about how science is a load of rubbish and how anyone can sit on their.. bottoms.. all day and come up with stupid theories.
I've heard this kind of thing before too so I don't think distrust in 'science' is as scarce as you think it is

You'll get people who say that because they don't understand it, are ignorant, or choose to want to believe something even with enough evidence for it to be worth considering (doesn't mean it's "right", nothing is "certain" in an absolute way) in which they are just stupid. These people will always be like this and no-one should care about them because they are their own worst enemy.

It's the people that don't want to be ignorant or stupid, but yet don't have the understanding and would like some of that so that they can choose where to go from there.

For these people, it's important that in the same way that a proper journalist has a responsibility of telling people what is really going on and being a force that challenges the official account given by people who may have incentives contrary to those of the public, the scientist also has the same job in that their public role is not abuse their position by using their situation to deceive the public for someones gain (their own in the end, but might be who they work for, who signs their paycheck, their political or other affiliations and so on).

When you get a breakdown for something like this you get chaos, and chaos is the stuff that we had when we had idiots fighting wars over this and that because they couldn't think straight, and because they were all looking for a cause to believe in because they couldn't use their own brain and initiative to think for themselves.

So for the people like the one you spoke to, don't try and think that its a bad thing when you get people that think like that: if they choose not to consider there everyday experiences of cause and effect, and even just a second opinion of any kind, let them be in their own ignorance. Trying to help people like this is like trying to start a fire using wet wood: it's a waste of precious energy and it won't work unless the wood dries.

They have the right, as funny and as ridiculous as it is to believe whatever the hell they want to believe, but if they want to become less ignorant, they will eventually like everybody else who changes their perspective end up in a situation where they can see a new perspective.

The other thing is that we don't know their background. If you get people who are brainwashed into a particular paradigm regardless of what it is, then who are we to know what it's like to be fed this crap for the moment they were born. This is another reason to understand why people need to come to their own conclusions because we just don't know the kind of crap that they have been dealt in the past.

But I wouldn't worry: you have a lot of like minded people right here on these forums with very good intentions for the internal and even the external community at large, so it's not by any means a lost cause :)

 

[Devils]

'correlate'

 

[genericusrnme]

But I wouldn't worry: you have a lot of like minded people right here on these forums with very good intentions for the internal and even the external community at large, so it's not by any means a lost cause :)

Oh you lil' cutie making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

Although I think the reason I've heard so much of that kinda stuff is just because where I live most people are either older and don't talk so loudly at each other or are 'old enough to know better' delinquents, I've never really heard anything along those lines in other places I have visited.

 

[DennisN]

At the moment: "quantum". I'm sick of it, truly sick of reading that word (even tho' I'm very interested in quantum mechanics). Whatever I'm looking at, it's quantum this and quantum that. :zzz:

 

[Curious3141]

Ironically enough, I think the word "God" is the most misused when lay people or the popular press refer to scientific discoveries.

I can't tell you how much these phrases grate on me:

"Playing God",

"The face of God",

"God particle",

etc.

Well, even the venerable Einstein was sort of guilty of this with his famous pronouncement: "God does not play dice."

Invoking "God" does nothing to add impact to those who actually care about the science, but does a lot to alienate those already antipathetic toward science to begin with.

 

[chiro]

The movie Angels and Demons probably helped out a bit as well...

 

[Kholdstare]

I can think of a timeline of this thing
super -> energy -> quantum -> nano