One of these people has a good reason for preferring his terminology (e.g. it’s standard, it’s what everyone in the field actually uses, etc.) “Scott, can you define what a qubit is?”, etc.
Yes, but you are talking to people outside of the field.
For example you tend to use the expression “prediction model” as an antonym to “causal model”. That may be standard in your field, but that’s not what it means outside of it.
For example you tend to use the expression “prediction model” as an antonym to “causal model”.
Not an antonym, just a different thing that should not be confused. A qubit is a very different thing from a bit, with different properties.
That may be standard in your field, but that’s not what it means outside of it.
“Sure, this definition of truth may be standard in your field, Prof. Tarsky, but that’s not what we mean!” I guess we are done, then! Thanks for your time.
One of these people has a good reason for preferring his terminology (e.g. it’s standard, it’s what everyone in the field actually uses, etc.) “Scott, can you define what a qubit is?”, etc.
Yes, but you are talking to people outside of the field.
For example you tend to use the expression “prediction model” as an antonym to “causal model”. That may be standard in your field, but that’s not what it means outside of it.
Not an antonym, just a different thing that should not be confused. A qubit is a very different thing from a bit, with different properties.
“Sure, this definition of truth may be standard in your field, Prof. Tarsky, but that’s not what we mean!” I guess we are done, then! Thanks for your time.