Section names

[-JKP-]

...

Ten years ago, astronomers decided that Pluto was no longer a planet.
Was there consensus? I dare say: not!

Teachers used to teach that Saturn was the only planet with rings. They were wrong. They should have taught that Saturn was the only planet with rings "that we know of so far", but they didn't do that and they stuck a very wrong concept in people's heads (just as a flat earth and earth as center of universe were wrong concepts).


If it's wrong, change it. So what if half a generation will be confused and have to sort out two different messages if the result is that the next generation will have better information and things are given an opportunity to evolve.

We are stuck with QWERTY keyboards, which slow down typing, even though there was an opportunity, when computer keyboards were introduced, to change it, to introduce the faster, easier-to-learn DVORAK keyboard. There was a lot of discussion about grabbing the opportunity for positive change in computer journals—the opportunity was squandered and now we're stuck with a long-since-obsolete system.


I see no problem with discussing alternatives. And... if they are good ones, over time, they may be adopted. We may know more about the VMS than those previous researchers due to radio-carbon dating results, multi-spectral images, historic letters, and other research that comes to light. We have to expect that some older ideas about the VMS are obsolete and some may be dead wrong.



I'm in support of neutral terminology as long as the terms are natural enough to perceive and remember.

I honestly don't think a new researcher would have trouble making the conceptual leap between small-plant pages and an earlier and perhaps incorrect designation of "pharmaceutical". The same with "biological". It may be an incorrect designation. What if Koen turns out to be right and these are fanciful expressions of Ovidian myths or constellations? They may not be biological at all (or there may be several sections, myths, constellations, AND biological). If that's the case, a more neutral designation might make it easier to see what's really there.