I notice what seems to be a commonly-found conflict between actual usage of a term and proposed definitions that may be fairly rigorous, but either lack a close fit with usage, or have yet to be sufficiently tested against actual usage.

Language is generally agreed to be defined by usage, not by authority or decree (except maybe in France). However, usage may not be based on logic and rigor. Thus, fitting usage and having a rigorous definition may be IncompatibleGoals.

--top

I have noticed this recently on the usage of the work paradigm. I was putting together some references to multiparadigm programming and the references do not agree about what is a programming paradigm. Each author is free to say what they think, subject to the comments of the referees for the paper, so there may well be divergence, or the fact that papers were written at different times.  Consensus about usage will tend to drift with time.  All we can ask of any one author is that they are selfconsistent in a particular paper. Discussions such as on wiki may help us to arrive at consensus. --JohnFletcher

''This is a Grand Weakness in "computer science". People quote their favorite authority instead: ArgumentFromAuthority.'' -t
----
And how do mathematicians deal with terminology? Does every mathametician use non rigorous psychology based terms that mean different things to different people, or do they agree upon a common definite and precise language? How about scientists: do scientists use psychology "feel" based terms and models instead of rigorous precise ones that are agreed upon?  When there is an error in someone's mathematical or scientific model, it is corrected using rigor and precision, not flimsy pshycology/feel good terms and cute metaphors.

''That's the ideal, but not enough things we care about are defined and codified so clearly.''
----
CategoryDiscussion, CategoryDefinition