There are a lot of cases where vague language is all you have. There is no way to be more precise. And if you are aware of that you will be deliberate about it. Thus I am unhappy with your choice. I think more accurate would have been to call it misleadingly vague langue—which makes it kind of trite/trivial.
In case it’s not clear what I mean by vague language by need here are some examples:
You just don’t know enough of the subject (yet). Being deliberate about it might mean that you are honest about that.
The audience is not familiar enough with the subject and the precise terminology. While I think this may be true in some circumstances I wouldn’t say it’s usually true with the media.
There is not enough precise terminology and knowledge about the subject at all. This is the case with all new knowledge at the beginning—sometimes even physics and math. It is toying around with ideas and analogies and seeing what sticks and works. This is the state still with quite a lot of the soft sciences. And that is OK. It is how over time we move from imprecise to precise definitions. Look at a lot of what Scott Alexander writes. While clearly, he tries to use as precise terms as he can a typical m.o. is to approach the topic from multiple sides and use multiple analogies and examples.
There are a lot of cases where vague language is all you have. There is no way to be more precise. And if you are aware of that you will be deliberate about it. Thus I am unhappy with your choice. I think more accurate would have been to call it misleadingly vague langue—which makes it kind of trite/trivial.
In case it’s not clear what I mean by vague language by need here are some examples:
You just don’t know enough of the subject (yet). Being deliberate about it might mean that you are honest about that.
The audience is not familiar enough with the subject and the precise terminology. While I think this may be true in some circumstances I wouldn’t say it’s usually true with the media.
There is not enough precise terminology and knowledge about the subject at all. This is the case with all new knowledge at the beginning—sometimes even physics and math. It is toying around with ideas and analogies and seeing what sticks and works. This is the state still with quite a lot of the soft sciences. And that is OK. It is how over time we move from imprecise to precise definitions. Look at a lot of what Scott Alexander writes. While clearly, he tries to use as precise terms as he can a typical m.o. is to approach the topic from multiple sides and use multiple analogies and examples.