It's good to have _accurate_ answers but words do carry multiple
meanings, depending who wields it.
If you have a conversation and one person says:
"Science is a methodology used by humans for discovering
truth-value utilizing evidence, duplication... etc" and whips
out a flow-chart..
and the other person says,*
"Well, Science is trying to clone children!"
The conversation won't get very far: NOT because one is using an
accurate definition and the other an inaccurate definition but
because each will stick to their own definitions of Science and
not budge.
*Is* Science trying to clone children?*
Well, in a sense, yes. If one *representative* that is _within_
a field of the Sciences is working on human cloning, it's _not
entirely wrong_ to say, "Science is trying to clone children".
It's equivalent to saying, "Religion kills people because ISIS
killed someone".
It's _not entirely wrong_ but it's an attitude that *could* use
some fine-tuning until reaching a consensus.
But then again, so can the precise definer. By NOT recognizing
the validity of the other person's statement, conversation
because difficult or impossible, especially when hosts of other
factors come into play like stereotyping and such.
You -could- just say "you're using the word Science wrong" and
walk away.*
Technically valid? Sure.
But it's stopping short of a full conversation. Concerns _can_
be addressed with precision and care and working with someone
until each understand each other.
