Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lapeni t1_j7wjej2 wrote

Reply to comment by CrustalTrudger in Can the static tension of tectonic plates be quantified, or how are predictions about future quakes made? by TokinGeneiOS

I don’t think a persons paper overrules a dictionary. I can’t comment on the chapter you linked as its behind a paywall.

That aside, we all understand what the OP is asking, hence my opinion that a lengthy paragraph explaining how a very niche group of people differentiate between two words that the majority of people (including OP) and the dictionary define as synonyms is masturbatory.

I mean no offense. My comment is not intended to upset you. It is intended as critique. I apologize if it came across in an attacking manner.

−1

CrustalTrudger t1_j7wnaex wrote

It's not "masturbatory" to explain the terminology used by the domain scientists who are relevant for a question (of which I am one, i.e., a professional geologist with a Ph.D. who studies natural hazards, and specifically earthquakes, as part of their research). If you choose not to believe me in terms of the pervasiveness of these terms and their usage in this context, how about the USGS?

More broadly, there are myriad examples where the specific use of terminology within a branch of science is different than common usage. In this case, the distinction drawn between these two words in the context of the scientific community of interest is useful in terms of describing what we can and cannot do (and very specifically why the community of scientists who study these make the distinction that you are complaining about). Ultimately, the point of this subreddit is for people with specific expertise to communicate that knowledge to interested parties. If you're not interested in learning, you're welcome to not read or comment on future posts in this subreddit.

5