Plus, Jed would have to change the name of his book :)
On Monday, July 15, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Moab Moab <moab2...@googlemail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'moab2...@googlemail.com');>> wrote:
>
>
>> You are proposing that a "name change" will make non-listeners into
>> listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
>>
>> I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper
>> published with the new name will immediately figure out that "it's plain
>> old cold fusion **** again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet
>> another name". To them it would only appear as if an attempt was made to
>> hide the topic behind a new name.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> I would add that the many names that have been proposed and are now used
> were never intended to disguise the nature of the research, like a
> euphemism. This is a myth. No one expected these new words to sway the
> skeptics. I know this because I was there -- I took part in the discussions
> proposing these new terms. People began calling it LENR because they
> thought that was more accurate technically. Martin Fleischmann in
> particular did not like the term "cold fusion."
>
> It makes no difference what you call something. It is what it is. All
> words are technically inaccurate. As linguists say, the word is not the
> thing. Nearly all words are based on earlier concepts applied to new ideas.
> This is been true since the beginning of language. For example, the word
> "understand" is derived from standing under something. To understand is to
> grasp that which underlies the thing, metaphorically. Many new words begin
> as metaphors.
>
> Most computer vocabulary was invented since 1945. It derives from two
> sources:
>
> 1. Old words applied to new concepts such as "register."
>
> 2. New words made up for the purpose such as "software" or "input." Most
> of these words use older words compounded to form new meanings.
>
> A few of the new words are whimsical, such as "byte" which derives from
> the word "bite" (what you do with your teeth). It relates to "bit" which is
> loosely derived from binary digit but actually just means a small thing,
> just as it does in the older definition.
>
> Completely new words without any roots in existing language are extremely
> rare. One example is the word "Google" which was invented by a child, and
> which was accidentally spelled wrong in the website name.
>
> In English, 19th century neologisms tended to be derived from Greek and
> Latin roots, such as "telephone." 20th and 21st century neologisms are
> usually derived from Anglo-Saxon words.
>
> - Jed
>
>
