[net.nlang] What's in a Name?

werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (11/09/85)

	As you are probably aware, the current euphemism for quack therapies 
is "Unproven Methods."  For instance, the American Cancer Society has an
"Unproven Methods Committee."   I have always held that this was sort of a 
misnomer, since the people running the Laetrile mills could just reply,
"Well, it just isn't proven YET!", which would go against the evidence that
most of these methods have been definitely DISPROVEN, or if not that, will
NEVER be PROVEN.
	I apparently am not alone. There is now a movement afoot to deny the
quacks even the upper hand in semantics.  There is a proposal to change the
name of the "Unproven Methods Committee" to either "Undemonstrated Methods"
or "Questionable Methods." I favor the former (though I have no say), as 
"Questionable" still has some ambiguity.  
	It is much more definitive to say:
	"Laetrile has not been demonstrated to cure cancer." than the
current "has not been proven."
[Note, I use Laetrile as an example.  However, Laetrile is now passe. 
 Megavitamin therapies are in, or whatever. They are undemonstrated as well.]

	In a related development, the American Medical Student Association
recently changed the name of one of its committees from:
	Committee on Smoking and Health
to	Committee on Smoking OR Health		[Emphasis theirs]
thus eliminating yet another oxymoron (although I don't know if Safire would
allow this as an oxymoron) from the English compendium.


-- 

				Craig Werner
				!philabs!aecom!werner
                 "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died."