>From Robert: > There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently > disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and > affect changes in perception: > "Global warming" to "climate change"? > "Pro-choice" to "women's health"? > "Gay marriage" to "marriage equality"?
In all three examples you cite I personally find it interesting that the "politically correct" replacement phrase being championed strikes me as being far less descriptive than the original phrase. There is considerable evidence that indicates that in many cases the objective of these focus groups was to water down, or obfuscate, the issues being championed out of the original phrase. But getting back to "cold fusion", the question is whether someone (or some group) is attempting to water down the phrase "cold fusion", such as by calling it a "nuclear effect". In my view it is debatable whether such efforts will net them an advantage on the political front. I think not. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
