Dear Cecilia,

Yes, agreed.

The pursuit of simplicity is appropriately named the parsimony principle, which is commonly known as Occam's razor.   It was William of Ockham (1285-1347), who gave the following recipe for avoiding unnecessarily entities in a theory:

Plurality is not be assumed without necessity

A good addition to what @Cecilia has observed can be found in

L. De Cruz, Bayesian model selection for electromagnetic kaon production in the Regge-plus-resonance framework, Ph.D, thesis, 2012:

http://inwpent5.ugent.be/papers/phdlesley.pdf

There are 25 references to Occam's razor in this thesis in a well-thought through manner, starting in Section 1.1:  Scientific Theory and Occam's Razor.   It is De Cruz who points out that Occam's razor follows in a natural way from Bayesian inference, p. 53.

Thus, is the biology-based feeling of pleasure after mentally finding/providing a simple explanation for a (complex) phenomenon in nature reliable from a scientific point of view?

Several potential scenarios: 

1) Should humans/human brains be philosophically placed at the center of the universe or not (cf. the position of the Earth in the universe, like Ptolemaeus versus Copernicus-like approaches)?

2) Do the brain structures used in science practice result from Darwinian natural selection or not? For instance, brain structures might have been selected in past environments that are disconnected from the environments science is willing to study. Why should Darwinian natural selection have selected brain structures being able to analyse particles that cannot be perceived during daily life, also accepting that knowledge about these particles is disconnected from the Darwinian-based probabilities to survive and reproduce? 

Example of ambiguous terms in chemistry & allied sciences: 1) Orbital which means region in space in which an electron is most probably found. It is a region of possible location & not definite location. The layman thinks that the electron is found in an orbit "circular or elliptical". 2) An aerosol means spray can to the public but it means tiny atmospheric particle. 3) Values mean to the public something ethical or monetary but its scientific meaning is expressing in numbers or quantities. 4) Organic means to the public no pesticides or insecticides but to the chemist it means a hydrocarbon or hydrocarbon derivative. 5) A base generally means solid foundation& the term "on the basis" was derived from it. The chemist may use that but a base in chemistry is a chemical which is alkaline or electron pair donor.

All these ambiguous terms will/may complicate communication across science disciplines.  

Well. Interesting, Now I realised that I have been using ambigous terminology unknowingly. They are quite enormous. We can't avoid them.

Most terms used in isolation are highly ambiguous. It is the context in which terms are used which reduces the inherent ambiguity. For example, the context can be the discipline or subdiscipline you are talking about. But even then there remains ambiguity because researchers may have different theoretical frameworks in which the same terminology is used as in another - competing - theoretical framework. For example, within the field of education and educational research, terms like assessment or test may mean quite distinct things depending upon the type of test theory that you adhere to. And the term assessment is also used quite a lot outside the field of education, and may again mean something completely or partially different from educational assessment. Because of this inherent ambiguity it is almost always necessary to include a glossary or index of terms in any scientific work aimed at a large readership.

Dear Paul,

A glossary is now more frequently added in review papers, which is excellent, I think.

Dear @Marcel, I think that such  troublesome words, terms exist in almost any scientific discipline. Paper on WORD USAGE IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING is attached with many examples described and directions toward the usage.

Some examples: Alternate, alternative....

The second link gives many examples, look at shell! Ambiguous Words List is attached!

http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/merchant/pdf/Word_Usage_Scientific_Writing.pdf

http://muse.dillfrog.com/meaning/word/shell

http://muse.dillfrog.com/ambiguous_words.php

Dear Ljubomir,

These lists are impressive! There is apparently international consensus for 'simple' languages in Math and Chemistry, but this is apparently not the case for language even after the invention of the dictionary several centuries ago. 

Perhaps a simple proximate mechanism for the maintenance of ambiguity in science is: 1) Science likes novelty or scientists admire intellectual novelty; 2) It is perceived as 'bad' when a scientist repeats a colleague using exactly same wording, e.g. therefore there is a strong tendency that exactly the same term or hypothesis will be presented differently across publications; 3) Because of intellectual isolation of sub-disciplines/disciplines for one or more reasons, local science-based cultures will evolve representing for instance science-based dialects that express spatio-temporal variations both within and across science disciplines..   

Some words are more ill-defined than ambiguous. There is no ambiguity in the word energy as used in physics. Yet, what is it? The meaning of the term energy in other subjects and life may vary. Since energy is the ability to do work we find it confusing that climbing stairs we do work. Going down stairs gravity does the work so there is no net work. Energy was expended.

Can someone explain why the measurements, x, are a random variable when I went to great lengths to make them exact?

Energy is used, energy is expended, energy is consumed, energy is expressed through movement or physical change etc...  If energy or potential energy can be everything/anything (E = M...) (heat, light, pressure, ....) why defining it? 

May be because in the real world, definitions are inconsistent tautologies.

… and then (if I correctly understood the question) all the problems with connotation/denotation, extension/intension, or sense/reference, which are quite of the same family, contribute that words have “own” freedom and life and the ambiguity becomes inevitable.

Ah, you wanted the examples? To some extent each word is ambiguous, for example! Since it is  long after the midnight, let us discuss this when our eyes will look around with a fresh, Sundays clarity.

I thought I have posted an idea yesterday, but did not shown here. Any way, here is what I said yesterday. One ambiguous science word(s) that comes to my mind is "the hidden dimensions" of space of string theory, whose existence is mostly mathematical. An observation of linear one dimensional matter is actually up close three dimensional, therefore with two hidden dimensions. The other ambiguous terminology  from physics is "God particle" for Higgs boson intended to attach a strong meaning to the particle as the basis for the formation of the universe. We humans always tend to give names to things that are scientific or otherwise to own and possess them. In order to do that a strong and lasting name should be used which might be the source of ambiguity.  

Perhaps scientists have the tendency to use sexy words to attract as many readers as possible. Terminology used to impact human social frameworks? 

(following Nizar's line of thoughts above, cross-disciplinary misunderstanding:)

ground truth (or reference) data: this term can be a major source of misunderstanding in an interdisciplinary environment. It happened to me 3 years ago at a meeting that ecologists and remote sensing specialists agreed upon that there existed ground truth/reference data for a certain hyperspectral project. I had to intervene and  stop the discussion, because I realized that ecologists meant a list of species living at a certain place (as reference data; actually did not exist for that area), while remote specialists thought about hyperspectral spectra (as reference data) taken by hand-held instruments measured on the spot (data did really exist). In case of 'reference (data)' it can also mean the geographical reference (= georeference).

distribution: this term can be really very disciplinary-dependent. It is enough to mention that it can be statistically meant or in terms of spatial distribution. It is very possible that you have both in the same project (many measurements taken in a widespread area, with repeated readings on each measurement point). Or you take a large number of rock samples at several sites, you create thin sections and then you use the term e.g., distribution of (chemical) elements (in the thin sections [micrometer scale] or over the sites[km-scale]?). A further source of misunderstanding can be when 'distribution' is meant as 'dissemination', e.g. 'data distribution' can be really confusing.

relief: well, among geoscientists the meaning can be a matter of debate, but if you, as a geoscientist, work with archaeologists in the field you should be aware that this term is has very many meaning. (Also interesting if you speak to people who are involved in catastrophe mitigation.)

and last, but most probably the most important:

model(l)ing: it is a so broad topic that I do not dare to write anything here, I let your imagination work. Nevertheless, I just mention that I had a strong debate on that recently, during the compilation of a two-author manuscript with my colleague and good friend: what he meant about modeling I could not live with that! Finally we reached a compromise using alternative wording. (Many thanks to him to be more flexible as myself!)

Kind regards, Balázs

Dear all,

I´m following with interest, but to be honest, I´m to lazy to find out all the ambiguities in science. The double meanings in my daily correspondence and discussions are also disturbing a lot. If talking scientificly I try to avoid such errors and make all efforts to be understandable and to use well defined terms.

But please go on, I´m waiting for the next listing.

Often several words may convey similar meaning, but usually only one word is most appropriate in a given context.

Example:

“correlated” and “related” have similar meanings, but, “correlated” conveys a precise statistical relationship between two variables. In scientific writing, it is typically not enough to simply point out that two variables are related: the reader will expect an explanation to the precise nature of the relationship. When using “correlation,” explanation should cover how the correlation was estimated

The Writing Center, Sciences,  The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

(I add one more term that is also confusingly used even in ResearchGate:)

mapping:  a cartographer would mean to acquire topographical data (e.g., from surveyors) and compile a map out of it; a mathematician would mean some sort of established relationship (could be formulated more precisely) between two (or more) sets; a computer scientist would mean an operation in the memory of the computer; a geologist/geomorphologist or a biologist/ecologist or even an archaeologist would mean to go to the field and recognize and document the features and later draw a map of all these; a geochemist would probably mean to insert a thin section of a rock into an instrument and tediously measure the composition of the minerals in 2D on micrometer scale; and an astronomer would use a telescope or other instrument to find and catalogue stars, nebulae, galaxies, etc.

I guess there are more meanings that I am not aware of. KInd regards, Balázs

Dear Balazs,

And what about the meaning of a song across taxonomic groups (humans versus birds versus insects) or science disciplines (ethology, human psychology, musicology..)

Some define a song via function (e.g. a vocalization evolved to defend a territory or a mate), expression/performance (e.g. a loud signal used for long-distance communication) or via syntax/structure (e.g. song =strophe in the songbird literature)... 

And, indeed as you know, function also has different meanings in different science disciplines (Mathematics, Evolutionary Biology, Behavioral Sciences, Job Administration,.....)

In response to the article of Baker (thanks Cecilia): 

1) Is parsimony the only guarantee for scientific success (e.g. as expressed in science citation indices) accepting that ontologically simpler theories are intellectually more accessible to a wider human readership, but perhaps disconnected from the true nature of nature? Will scientists cite articles they do not understand, i.e. that are intellectually not accessible?

2) How is use of ambiguous science terms linked to the principles of plenitude versus parsimony in science practice?

3) Specific remark irrelevant to the initial question:

The case of Buffon's Law with versus without human technology (>p. 205-).

Humans are currently able to transport any animal to any place in the world, as expressed in species communities presented in zoos all over the world, e.g. polar bears have been present in South Africa. How do these so-called laws as defined in Biogeography deal with human technological progress, also accepting that humans are part of nature? 

I don't think that Buffon, Darwin or Wallace had airplanes in mind at the time they proposed their ideas about underlying mechanisms influencing species distribution ranges. Does human impact reduce the predictive power of human-made laws/theories from the past? How can parsimony handle this? 

Marcel

Parsimony is required for understanding. Ambiguity is avoided only with a parsimonious description. Nevertheless, complexity and confounding are hard to avoid. A simple question with a simple answer may include a matrix of contributing factors. The task of a scientist is to drill down through the maze with Occam at our side (mixed metaphorically speaking).

Note the use of the work 'matrix.' Do several meanings come to mind?

Infinity for an electron is infinitesimally small.

Dear Joseph,

Parsimony could be defined as a scientific tool adjusted to the functioning of the human biology-based or biology-biased brain. The question is whether the tool is sufficient to capture the true nature or nature. Perhaps parsimony is like doing the best of a bad job or not? If so, it only shows that the human brain will not be able to discover everything in nature. Is this statement not ambitious enough?

Dear Arno/All,

what do you think is the role of the media/journalists in the maintenance of ambiguous science terms like the ones you mentioned (including terms like The Milky Way, multiversum, black hole...)? Do they allow more efficient  communication addressed to non-specialists, including those that finance research? 

New example?

Scientists study oxytocin presented in the media as the/a love hormone. Is 'love hormone' ambiguous science terminology?

Clearly argued Cecilia!

@ Cecilia ::: I guess the fallacy that's on work here is not distinguishing between distinct purposes of science and research:

• (systematic) understanding of phenomena
• (deep) explanantion of phenomena
• (accurate) prediction of phenomena

Ockam's Razor seems to be fit for the last purpose, but not necessarily for the former ones.

In any case, Ockam's razor can't and doesn't distinguish between "what is really true" and "what we think is real".

Can we at all? I don't think so, at least I didn't find any convincing arguments in my whole life, neither in Western nor in Eastern philosophy.

With our models we may approximate reality to any degree of exactness at the cost of completeness. That's a fair deal. The best example is contemporary physics with its thousands of micro-models or micro-theories. Even so-called Grand Unification Theory comes in totally different guises and flavors!

Is that disturbing to you? Why?

He, he, let me "blur the picture" a bit.

Yes, nice examples; you even introduce YOUR ambiguity in the question, by discussing various references to the term. O.K, this is the second aspect. let me go back to the sources of the ambiguty in language.

My opinion is that the basic aspect is in the ambiguity of the words in general, linked to mentioned twin concepts of sense/reference, intention/extension, denotation/connotation, and let me add signifier/signified. I know that we are seldom very comfortable with this terms, but let us leave them as they are, this will intrigue you to look for their so interesting and important meanings.

But there is even more: specificity/sensitivity. The biologists know it well: more specific the term is, i.e. more parsimony we introduce, the term loses more of its content. Or may even lose all its content. And contrary is also the case: the less specific term is (more generous we are) - more ambiguity is involved; the term may even lose its sense completely ("The Holly Book" becoming "a holly book", for example).

But of course, you can discuss what you want and like, and the examples that you gave are very colorful. Yet it should not be forgotten that above mentioned nature of our use of words and of our understanding of words has its inherent irresolvable ambiguity that intervenes with all our efforts to render clear and unambiguous meanings to the scientific terms.

Hello Dragan,

thanks again for your remarks to stimulate thinking. Can you give at least one example from your field together with arguments?

Marcel,

I believe almost all words are ambiguous.

"We" see science to be succesful. This is may be because the only real, ultimate and unspoken criterion in science is : demonstration. If something cannot be shown empirically (finiteness of universe, for example) or if something cannot be verified (psychoanalysis for example) will remain behind the iron curtain that separates reliable science from what I call “romantic science”.

The language itself is discrete (!) and just mirrors what we see, know, believe, contemplate and we, our brain, can contemplate it in some language, through some language in fact, as discrete entities.There are so many quasi “discrete” items in the world that to have a single sign or a word for each would simply not be possible. I say quasi because I believe that our world is a continuum while language is discrete. Yet since I have impression that the reality is not discrete but “continuous”, therefore our discrete concepts about the world must break down as soon as we meet the limits of discreteness. Therefore to believe that we can ever be able to transform our concepts about the world into a completely precise language is a twofold illusion. Ambiguity is inherent to our world. Our picture of the world is also ambiguous, yet in a different way.

Is it

'>>>100 terminologies published in science journals'

or

'>>>100 terms published in science journals' ?

Please clarify.

THE AMBIGUITY OF SCIENCE:

http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXXII_1969/XXII-36.pdf

Ambiguous Words:

http://hendricks87.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/ambiguous-words/

Learning the Language of Evolution:Lexical Ambiguity and Word Meaning inStudent Explanations:

http://www.academia.edu/2446051/Learning_the_language_of_evolution_Lexical_ambiguity_and_word_meaning_in_student_explanations

Science-Based Medicine

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ambiguity/

The Science of Words:

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/language/plain.shtml

Understanding ambiguous words in sentence contexts

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393297001747

Read this:

http://www.slideshare.net/csandit/a-method-to-identify-potential-ambiguous-malay-words-through-ambiguity-attributes-mapping

Scientic documents often adopt a well-dened vocabulary and avoid the use of ambiguous terms. However, as soon as documents from dierent research sub-communities are considered in combination, many scientic terms become ambiguous as the same term can refer to dierent concepts from dierent sub-communities. The ability to correctly identify the right sense of a given term can considerably improve the eeffectiveness of retrieval models, and can also support additional features such as search diversication. This is even more critical when

applied to explorative search systems within the scientificc domain.

http://exascale.info/sites/default/files/Ontology-Based%20Word%20Sense%20Disambiguation%20for%20Scientific%20Literature.pdf

'Hydration' and 'dehydration' convey opposite meanings (addition and removal of moisture respectively)

'Hull' and ''shell' have the same meaning (outer covering of a seed/grain etc). However, 'dehulling' or 'shelling' are used to convey the same meaning i.e. removal of hull / shell.

Logically  'shelling' should mean 'putting the shell on' rather then removing it [as in case of the first example above].

@Shanker Lal Shrivastava

That's good with the 'shelling'  :-) ! (Actually it means artillery bombardment of a certain target... In a certain sense it is 'putting many shells on'; see e.g. Kelly's Heroes [Sergeant Mulligen]  :-)) On the other hand, I believe 'shell' has really a large number of meaning, good point. ('Hull' also, but I guess less in number, but important like 'convex hull'.) Kind regards, Balázs

Very right Dr Balázs,  in fact while writing my answer I was having this meaning of shelling also in mind. However, as I was writing in the context of agricultural processing (being a food engineer) I did not mention it in order to keep my answer less ambiguous.  

Dear Nina,

the use of "tree" and all the derivates in mathematics is an adoption to the form or "real" natural trees. The math´s branches are similar to the plant´s branches. etc. So I don´t believe that your example shows real ambiguities, just defined associations.  An matching example are the roots. Here I´ve no idea to the tree and math similarity.

Are terminologies often based on visual images?

Trees, stars, .... but what about root in mathematics?  

Dear Marcel,

we have a typical example for ambiguity in german: Impuls as momentum (physics) or Impuls as impetus. In both cases impulse like physical or mental propulsion.

Dear Hanno,

Can the same word have different meanings in different languages?

Dear Marcel,

of course. Scottish Loch  (lake), german Loch (hole).

Thousands of examples!

Such words in my language are known as homonyms!

Of course!

He, he, let me join this frivolous company.. here are some hard core examples:

What about induction?

Or what about intuition?

The analysis of the scale of a fish will depend on the scale of analysis

The analysis of the scale of a human will depend on the scale of analysis

If all the words in a book are replaced by synonyms, do we have another book? 

Only if you change the names to protect the ingenuous. 

The problem with synonyms is a possible difference in meaning. If the context cannot support the usual definition of the synonym then we produce nonsense. Ingenuous is a synonym for innocence but a different meaning.

Many scientific terms are unambiguous in context. Some scientific terms have a single meaning. Entropy is such a word. It means exactly what the equation says it is. Nevertheless, many physicists get it wrong because they learned the popular definition before they learned the equation. Entropy does not increase in a closed, isolated system.

The popular interpretation of entropy and the definitions used in other contexts are rarely properly defined.

The word grave, coming from gravity, equals mass. It has interesting synonyms, including a burial site.

Does simultaneous invoke a synonym?

Does it matter if the terminology has been defined clearly but is not well communicated?

I nominate the scientific method.

The consequences of communicating a clear meaning for this principle will be quite dramatic.  Yet, it gets bogged down for some reason. 

Dear Marcel,

do you really denote such scripts as science. For me it sounds like some dissociations and not like  real science.

But of course you will find some reasons for specialised terminology: it is short and self explaining, if you earlier have defined the meaning.

@Nina Sajna 

Madam, tree along with all its components does resemble all these in biology, but there is no ambiguity in this usage. Ambiguity arises when a reader gets puzzled in trying to get to the meaning of a term often understanding a wrong meaning. This may lead to different readers interpreting the same term differently. 

Dear Marcel,

We are discussing here about ambiguous science terminology. Repeating the same sentence/information with a different skill may be appreciated. On the contrary, in the scientific domain, simple/lucid language will be quite appreciated provided the statement is informative/adding to the knowledge. Ten Nobel laureates in literature may perhaps reiterate Newton's laws in ten different excellent ways, but all these versions may not warrant the least attention of a science scholar for whom the original version is quite good enough.

Dear all,

Good day,

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

               Albert Einstein

Regards

Explanation is a three-way street.  How many of us can honestly say      'I understand E = mc2?'

"...I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a first-comer."

~Peirce

But it's not simply the work of a beginner.  It is also a clash of worldviews:

"There never was the smallest disloyalty on James’s part. On the contrary, he has dragged in mention of me whenever he could.

In the spring of 1903 I was invited, by the influence of James, Royce, and Münsterberg, to give a course of lectures in Harvard University on Pragmatism. I had intended to print them; but James said he could not understand them himself and could not recommend their being printed. I do not myself think there is any difficulty in understanding them, but all modern psychologists are so soaked with sensationalism that they can not understand anything that does not mean that, and mistranslate into the ideas of Wundt whatever one says about logic. . . . How can I, to whom nothing seems so thoroughly real as generals, and who regard Truth and Justice as literally the most powerful powers in the world, expect to be understood by the thoroughgoing Wundtian? But the curious thing is to see Absolute Idealists tainted with this disease..."

http://csp3.blogspot.com/2009/04/charles-s-peirce-at-johns-hopkins.html

"I find there are three kinds of possible warrant for a Belief. Here is this distressing number 3 again, against which you seem to have sworn eternal enmity, but which will turn up again and again."

~Peirce, Excerpts from Letters to William James