Is this a fallacy?

[gnostic]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

 

[Twilight Hue]

If people like scientific terms and forgo actual scientific research and experimentation that can be shared, I think it's fallacy.

 

[gnostic]

If people like scientific terms and forgo actual scientific research and experimentation that can be shared, I think it's fallacy.

I just think that people agreeing on what the terms mean, avoid a lot of confusions where people make up their own words with meaning that no one else uses.

 

[Windwalker]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

In a sense maybe. It's more just co-opting a language without understand it, like kids using big grown up words when they don't know what they really mean. As they say, kids say the darndest things.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'd say it's not a fallacy, because if you say something is a fallacy, you have to know what specific fallacy, and I don't know of a specific logical fallacy which covers it.

 

[Heyo]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

Not a named fallacy, just poor debating technique.
There is a fallacy involving the meaning of words but I think you are not referring to that. It is the equivocation fallacy that occurs when a word has multiple meanings and is used in multiple meanings during an argument.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

Expecting words, terms, and concepts to have the same meaning in all contexts is a fallacy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I just think that people agreeing on what the terms mean, avoid a lot of confusions where people make up their own words with meaning that no one else uses.

That’s why defining one’s terms before presenting an argument is standard practice in all academic disciplines. Terms like entropy, gravity, phase, amplitude etc have subtly different meanings depending on the context in which they are applied.

 

[Ella S.]

It might be a form of loaded language or a persuasive definition, depending on the context, which can be fallacious.

However, a logical fallacy is an error in inference. One might use a word incorrectly, but that is not an invalid form of inference because merely using a word is not a form of inferential argumentation. You have to take it into context with the line of reasoning they are setting forward in order to tell if it is a genuine fallacy or not.

Something can be false but logically valid. Just as well, something can be supported by a fallacious argument and still be true. Misusing a word is more "false" territory.

 

[gnostic]

Expecting words, terms, and concepts to have the same meaning in all contexts is a fallacy.

That’s why defining one’s terms before presenting an argument is standard practice in all academic disciplines. Terms like entropy, gravity, phase, amplitude etc have subtly different meanings depending on the context in which they are applied.

If we (as in you and i) were talking about anything about systems (whether it be biology, or engines, or cosmology) relating to thermal energy and thermodynamics, then you would expect me, to not change the meaning of entropy to something else completely unrelated to the subject.

Do you or don’t you agree?

Because I had experience with people here, completely changing the meanings on some scientific words that are “not scientific“.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

I don't think so. I'd call it spin.

Fallacies are deceptive arguments or ideas.

Spin, on the other hand, is an (mis)interpretation presented for the purpose of influencing option.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If we (as in you and i) were talking about anything about systems (whether it be biology, or engines, or cosmology) relating to thermal energy and thermodynamics, then you would expect me, to not change the meaning of entropy to something else completely unrelated to the subject.

Do you or don’t you agree?

Because I had experience with people here, completely changing the meanings on some scientific words that are “not scientific“.

Yes, I agree we need to have some sort of consensus on how we use a particular word, in the context in which we are using it. But consider this; entropy has different implications for steam engines than it does for the ultimate fate of the universe. And it’s fair to say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has philosophical implications, in terms for example
of the direction of time, which may not be apparent or relevant in every context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

Intentional misrepresentation is not a fallacy (logical or otherwise) -- it's a form of deceit.

Expecting words, terms, and concepts to have the same meaning in all contexts is a fallacy.

And your comment is distortion unless, of course, you honestly believe that @gnostic holds such expectations, in which case it's simply ignorant.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Intentional misrepresentation is not a fallacy (logical or otherwise) -- it's a form of deceit.



And your comment is distortion unless, of course, you honestly believe that @gnostic holds such expectations, in which case it's simply ignorant.

Thanks for your contribution. I’ll put your distortion of what I said down to accidental, rather than wilful, misunderstanding on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

I would just call it an error. In fact I would say that it is worse than a fallacy.

Let's take the ad hominem fallacy for example. With that fallacy one claims that another person is a member of a specific group or has a particular trait. And therefore you are wrong. The problem usually arises that even if the accusations are true, and they often are not, that does not guarantee that are wrong.

When someone misuses terms it tells us that they lack an understanding of the topic at hand and the odds that they are wrong jumps hugely.

 

[PureX]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

It's become a common practice in many areas of thought, not just science. Words are coming more and more to mean whatever we want them to mean, to suit our preferred delusions.

 

[PureX]

I just think that people agreeing on what the terms mean, avoid a lot of confusions where people make up their own words with meaning that no one else uses.

I don't think it's an issue of "agreeing" so much as it's an issue of logical reasoning. Words have multiple meanings, and dictionaries record common misuse along with proper usage. So we need to be able to logically justify the way we choose to use a word, and the words we are choosing to use.

I find that the people who misuse words cannot logically justify the meanings that they are applying to the words they are misusing. And when asked to do so, they will just end up repeating whatever bias or delusion they are trying to defend by that misuse. And at that point there isn't much use in continuing the conversation because they aren't conversing to learn, they are just auto-defending their bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have noticed that some people, mainly science illiterate people, who tried to make up or redefine commonly used science terminology to mean something very different or the opposite to what it actually mean

is that fallacy?

Sounds like just arguing a strawman.