He who controls the language controls the argument. The examples I'd provided were all to demonstrate the utility of changing the terminology. You will not immediately remove stigma, but can restructure the entire nature of the dispute. The change in name can have the largest effect on those new to the fray. So, if the Ni-H interaction renamed: "Low-Impact Quantum Energy" LIQE (pronounced:Like) Who could oppose it.
I firmly support Low Impact Quantum Energy. I can see the campaign buttons now, "I LIKE LIQE!" > Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:50:31 -0600 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > From Robert: > > > There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently > > disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and > > affect changes in perception: > > "Global warming" to "climate change"? > > "Pro-choice" to "women's health"? > > "Gay marriage" to "marriage equality"? > > In all three examples you cite I personally find it interesting that > the "politically correct" replacement phrase being championed strikes > me as being far less descriptive than the original phrase. There is > considerable evidence that indicates that in many cases the objective > of these focus groups was to water down, or obfuscate, the issues > being championed out of the original phrase. > > But getting back to "cold fusion", the question is whether someone (or > some group) is attempting to water down the phrase "cold fusion", such > as by calling it a "nuclear effect". In my view it is debatable > whether such efforts will net them an advantage on the political > front. I think not. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
