[margalabargala]

It's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though.

The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed" but it will improve society overall by increasing the communication ability of some of its currently less skilled memebers.

[breezybottom]

No, the label itself is incoherent. If we had a better education system, we probably wouldn't have quack science like this being accepted.

[margalabargala]

I'm sure the label seems incoherent to you. It must be frustrating seeing others discuss things that you can't make sense of.

The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will begin to appear coherent to you.

[breezybottom]

I don't care if it's useful to you, you're obviously not a scientist. I am, and such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.

[margalabargala]

We've already established liguistics is not your field. You would benefit from gaining even a layman's understanding of it though.

I do work as a scientist, but it's not so core to my identity that I throw tantrums over internet comments failing to adhere to the same professional rigor.

> I don't care if it's useful to you

> such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.

Braden dismissing useful tools and willful blindness to things beyond your exact field, I daresay you are a bad scientist.