Some things are just poorly-to-exceptionally badly named:
1) Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species had almost incomparably important things to say about a wide range of phenonemena, but it said next to nothing about speciacation (the origin of species, that is)
2) Reeves and Nash’ Media Equation is pretty much the idea that people treat things as if they were people. It’s not an equation and it’s not about media.
3) (Economic) Game Theory is not really about games (although sometimes it is) and it’s not a theory.
Should we award special consideration to things that seem to succeed despite being so uninformatively named?
(Other examples?)
Comments are closed.