Even if it is “just a synonym”, it does not imply that we should shift terminology. Terminology is not just about definition (denotation), it is also about implication (connotation).
As others have pointed out, “mechanistic” and “reductionist” have unwanted connotations, while “gears-level” has only the connotations the community gives it… along with the intuitive implication that it’s a model that is specific enough that you could build it, that you would need to know what gears exist and how they connect. (In contrast, it’s much easier to say that a model is mechanistic or reductionist, without it actually being, well, gears-level!)
Between the lack of pre-existing negative connotations and the intuition pump, there seems to me to be more than enough value to use the term in preference over the other words, even if it were an exact synonym!
I see an implicit premise I disagree with about the value of improving communication within the rationalist community vs. between rationalists and outsiders; It seems like I think the latter is relatively more important than you do.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean more precisely, as “improving communication” is really under-specified in what you wrote. Communication to achieve what purpose, exactly?
I think you may be correct that I don’t value some goal as much as you do, but I expect most of the difference lies in how we each define the phrase “improving communication”.
I would argue that my approach is very much treating “improving communication to outsiders” as a very important thing—so there must be some difference in what you are assuming the goal of such communications is.
Even if it is “just a synonym”, it does not imply that we should shift terminology. Terminology is not just about definition (denotation), it is also about implication (connotation).
As others have pointed out, “mechanistic” and “reductionist” have unwanted connotations, while “gears-level” has only the connotations the community gives it… along with the intuitive implication that it’s a model that is specific enough that you could build it, that you would need to know what gears exist and how they connect. (In contrast, it’s much easier to say that a model is mechanistic or reductionist, without it actually being, well, gears-level!)
Between the lack of pre-existing negative connotations and the intuition pump, there seems to me to be more than enough value to use the term in preference over the other words, even if it were an exact synonym!
Also, I feel like the mental picture of gears turning is far more telling than the picture of a “mechanism”.
I see an implicit premise I disagree with about the value of improving communication within the rationalist community vs. between rationalists and outsiders; It seems like I think the latter is relatively more important than you do.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean more precisely, as “improving communication” is really under-specified in what you wrote. Communication to achieve what purpose, exactly?
I think you may be correct that I don’t value some goal as much as you do, but I expect most of the difference lies in how we each define the phrase “improving communication”.
I would argue that my approach is very much treating “improving communication to outsiders” as a very important thing—so there must be some difference in what you are assuming the goal of such communications is.