[loup-vaillant]

The problem lies in dilution: if people recognize a new meaning in an old phrase, it becomes more difficult to convey the old meaning. (Because you can't use that phrase any more.)

There is also the case where you thought you conveyed the new meaning, while it hasn't caught on yet (meaning, you made a mistake). So, better stay safe and stick to the old meaning while we can.

[vidarh]

The dilution has already happened, and this cause is pretty much lost.

English is my second language. I've known the "new" meaning since I was a kid.

I've to date maybe seen the "old" meaning used a handful of times other than in examples given by people trying to correct someone using the new meaning.

Outside of academia I'd be surprised to see it at all. I suspect it would be confusing to more people than would recognize it.

[Confusion]

The dilution has already happened, and this cause is pretty much lost.

Don't give up too easily.

Outside of academia I'd be surprised to see it at all. That's because it's originally an academical term for a logical fallacy. This is like the abuse of 'eigenvalues' by all kinds of crackpots and we should never stop fighting that kind of language abuse. We can't keep inventing new terms, just because others have hijacked the previous one.

[Confusion]

The dilution has already happened, and this cause is pretty much lost.

Don't give up too easily.

Outside of academia I'd be surprised to see it at all. That's because it's originally an academical term for a logical fallacy. This is like the abuse of 'eigenvalues' by all kinds of crackpots and we should never stop fighting that kind of language abuse. We can't keep inventing new terms, just because others have hijacked the previous one.

[loup-vaillant]

OK for this particular cause. I was more about a general stance: trying to slow down the rate of change in languages. The slower the change, the less confusing the language.