Skip to content

Southern Fried Science

Over 15 years of ocean science and conservation online

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS

The Importance of Word Choice: Terms with multiple meanings for scientists and the public

Posted on October 18, 2011January 10, 2024 By Andrew Thaler 18 Comments on The Importance of Word Choice: Terms with multiple meanings for scientists and the public
Uncategorized

If you haven’t seen the excellent post on Mountain Beltway – Words matter – you should head over there and take a look. The post brought up some interesting ideas about word choice, and how the common definition of a word may convey a different meaning than the scientific definition. For science communicators, this may lead to confusion and misunderstanding between you and your audience.

I presented this table to my Science and Nature Writing class this morning and asked my students to come up with other terms that may also have multiple, opposing meanings. This impressive list is what they produced:

There are obviously hundreds, if not thousands of other terms that could fit this list. So, in the spirit of collaboration and crowdsourcing, I’ve created a public Google Docs spreadsheet as a repository of confusing scientific terms. Feel free to add as you see fit, but do not delete anything. Feel free to add additional “Better Choices”. Please stick to words that clearly have multiple meanings, and not just difficult scientific concepts.

The editable spreadsheet is here – Terms that have different meanings for scientists and the public

Update: read the original paper that started this all: “Communicating the science of climate change“

Share this:

  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

Related

Tags: crowdsourcing multiple meanings science writing word choice

Post navigation

❮ Previous Post: Are you ready for Hagfish Day?
Next Post: Happy Hagfish Day! ❯

18 thoughts on “The Importance of Word Choice: Terms with multiple meanings for scientists and the public”

  1. Kevin Z says:
    October 18, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    This sort of thing could make a useful environmental wiktionary.

  2. buone says:
    October 18, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    You are stupid!!! The words which are being used in science are used for their correct meaning. Spoken language is diff from written one. It is spoken language that has diversion of meaning. Also, you do have polymorphism in spoken language like, running nose, running business, running out of money and so on. and people have no prob with that. If you have decided not to understand science no one can explain you. And it is not responsibility of scientists but there are people called science journalist, like me. We have responsibility to explain science to common people.

  3. Al Dove says:
    October 19, 2011 at 7:42 am

    Not sure I *entirely* agree with some of those descriptions, on both common usage and scientific usage. I wouldnt have said anything, but then again this whole discussion is about semantics, so it seems worth a comment! For example, the common usage given for “antibiotic” is closer in meaning to the common usage of “antiseptic”, but I think most folks do understand the difference between these two: hand sanitizer and a course of penicillin. Besides, the suggested alternative of “sterilizer” is even less accurate. Steam is a sterilizer, but it is certainly not an antibiotic. Secondly, “E. coli” can be and is used in a scientific context to mean tainted water/food; not everyone in science uses E. coli for genetics/cloning. Indeed, the whole reason the public uses it to mean tainted food/water is that that’s how scientists measure fecal contamination. In other words, the public took the common word usage from scientists in the first place. Finally, the suggested alternative for “sensitivity” is not correct. Sensitive tests have a low false negative rate, which is not to do with accuracy, at least not in the scientific meaning of the word “accurate”, which is about how close a test result is to the actual value. Maybe the best thing to do is add “accurate” (and while you’re at it, “specific”) to this list!

    This is a fascinating topic; I’ll be interested to see how your list develops

  4. Southern Fried Scientist says:
    October 19, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Yeah, some of the better choices definitely need work.

  5. James says:
    October 19, 2011 at 9:22 am

    Under “anti-biotic”, do NOT substitute “sterilizer”. It means something completely different. “Way to kill microbes” is a vague yet somewhat-accurate term, tho.

  6. James says:
    October 19, 2011 at 9:31 am

    “fat” and “protein” might be good additions, as well. people usually associate those with “blubber” and “meat”.

  7. John Aspinall says:
    October 19, 2011 at 10:08 am

    Many spreadsheet writers are completely missing the point; inserting rigorous but long-winded definitions in the column for “how to speak to the public”.
    Much as most of us (I would guess) are trained for rigor, it is the enemy of simplicity and clarity here.

  8. Southern Fried Scientist says:
    October 19, 2011 at 10:21 am

    I agree, however we are actively curating, and as terms are added we will be better able to collectively brainstorm better choices. Getting the ambiguous terms up is an important first step, even if you don’t have a great “better choice” yet.

  9. Monica Gilligan says:
    October 19, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    The big, big hangup with the public is the word theory. To the general public it means a guess. Heck, to politicians and the media it seems to mean guess. To scientists it means a framework for organizing data. No one can clear this up for most people in the public. Love your list. Good luck with it.

  10. Denali Hussin says:
    October 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    If you want to see the original source of this table, you should read “Communicating the Science Climate Change,” published in Physics Today by Susan Hassol and Richard Somerville, both of Climate Communication. The full pdf of the piece, including the table of terms, is available for download at the Climate Communication website: http://climatecommunication.org/news/physics-today-article/

  11. Luke Scientiae says:
    October 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Migh tbe interesting to consider setting up something like a Science Misconceptions Wiki. (Some things are already on RationalWiki, but it would be good to educate the masses more comprehensively, specifically aiming to disabuse people of the wrongful interpretations of scientific terminology. Get them to stop saying things like “evolution is just a theory” and “crystal healing energy”, etc.)

  12. Alex Dodge says:
    October 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    So, I see you made a table, then took a screenshot of it and uploaded that. No alt text either. Are you too good for the tag, or do you just hate blind people?

  13. Alex Dodge says:
    October 19, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    That should be <table> tag.

  14. Southern Fried Scientist says:
    October 19, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    The entire table, in glorious table form, is available at the link.

  15. Southern Fried Scientist says:
    October 19, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    It’s a good idea, but this list is specifically aimed not at “misconceptions” but at words that legitimately have multiple, non-overlapping meanings depending on the context of their use.

  16. Al Dove says:
    October 20, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    Putting “Species” on there is a fools errand. Even scientists can’t agree on what makes a species!

  17. Amber says:
    October 21, 2011 at 11:09 am

    Salt. Public: “table salt”. Scientists: “any compound formed by the reaction of an acid and a base”

    Base. Public: “a baseball marker,” “an outpost”, “reliable political support”. Scientists: “opposite of acids, has a pH over 7”

    Rich. Public “wealthy,” “flavorful”. Scientists: “abundant [in]”

    Crystal. Public: “jewel-like hunk of rock, usually in the quartz family”, or “fancy glass”. Scientists: “a substance that has formed a patterned molecular structure as it solidified”

    Radiation. Public: “death rays, invisible poison”. Scientists: “energy emitted”.

    Efficiency. Public: “how fast something works” Scientists: “how little heat energy is wasted”

  18. klb8s says:
    October 21, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Nice. I plan to steal from it early and often. But one quibble: public answer to “assay” is WTF? It’s not a word ordinary folks use at all.

Comments are closed.

Recent Popular Posts

The story of the pride flag made from NASA imagery: Bluesky's most-liked imageThe story of the pride flag made from NASA imagery: Bluesky's most-liked imageSeptember 27, 2024David Shiffman
Marine Biology Career AdviceMarine Biology Career AdviceMay 30, 2025David Shiffman
UN Ocean Conference Manu ChampionshipUN Ocean Conference Manu ChampionshipJune 5, 2025Angelo Villagomez
Shark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryShark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryAugust 10, 2014Michelle Jewell
I turned my woodshop into a personal solar farm.I turned my woodshop into a personal solar farm.June 21, 2021Andrew Thaler
Our favorite sea monsters – Ningen (#4)Our favorite sea monsters – Ningen (#4)September 7, 2010Andrew Thaler
What can the funniest shark memes on the internetz teach us about ocean science and conservation?What can the funniest shark memes on the internetz teach us about ocean science and conservation?November 8, 2013David Shiffman
What is a Sand Shark?What is a Sand Shark?November 12, 2017Chuck Bangley
A quick and dirty guide to making custom feeds on BlueskyA quick and dirty guide to making custom feeds on BlueskyFebruary 7, 2024Andrew Thaler
Megalodon: the New Evidence is a fake documentaryMegalodon: the New Evidence is a fake documentaryAugust 7, 2014David Shiffman
Subscribe to our RSS Feed for updates whenever new articles are published.

We recommend Feedly for RSS management. It's like Google Reader, except it still exists.

Southern Fried Science

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS


If you enjoy Southern Fried Science, consider contributing to our Patreon campaign.

Copyright © 2025 Southern Fried Science.

Theme: Oceanly Premium by ScriptsTown