Can You See Clearly Now?

Names are an indispensable part of our knowledge. Everything has a name.

Branded! Until popularity fades…

Paul Krugman’s editorial, “What’s in a Name? The Musk/Twitter Edition,” in the New York Times explores brand names in the marketplace. He refers to Elon Musk changing the name of “Twitter” to “X,” which Krugman considers pointless (as do I). But the article is timely in the sense that we are in an era of changing names for myriads of subjects to such an extent it’s very difficult to know what’s what!

Does “X” for “Twitter” suggest a porn site? Is “fake news” a lie or exaggeration or reference to information from a specific organization for political reasons?

Generally speaking

When I hear “tree” or “salt” or “rock” or “beach” I know what is meant, and an image of it appears in my mind. I also understand that these are generic names, so in addition to a specific item, the name represents a class of subjects. There are many species of trees, while table salt is the most common, there are a lot of other inorganic salts. Rocks come in all sizes and many compositions, and there are diverse beaches along oceans, lakes, and rivers. It’s even wider than that. These items belong to specific professions, such as botany, chemistry, geology, and coastal engineering.

Without reference names, how do we live or work together? How would we go about buying milk or a car or a house if there were no names to cover their category? Where do we go to fix a car or solve a legal issue if “mechanics” and “lawyers,” respectively, were not identified by the names of their professions? Life would continue, but it would be much wordier, more confusing, and harder to organize. So all activities would require more time.

This is why when something new is discovered it is immediately given a name, even before its function is understood. This name provides an invaluable reference while the new discovery is explored. Yet, with discovery, the name may change.

A name is clear until it isn’t

Take my own field of research – genes and proteins. The major proteins of the eye lens have been called crystallins for over a hundred years because these specific proteins accumulate in the transparent, crystalline lens. Thus, historically, the tissue location of these proteins in the lens determined their name.

How the proteins function to make the lens clear and able to focus images on the retina has been extensively studied. When a scientist refers to lens crystallins, it’s immediately known what’s meant.

But…and here is the tricky part…it turns out that crystallins are also found in many different tissues outside of the eye where they have different functions! They are not confined to the lens, as previously thought. In the lens crystallins are largely for structure, while in other tissues, the same proteins act as enzymes for metabolism, or they function as heat-shock proteins to protect other proteins from excess heat or other physical insults.

Many other proteins are known for only a single function, perhaps the one discovered first or used extensively, although they have diverse functions. Hemoglobin is a prime example, which is known for transporting oxygen to tissues, although it has other enzymatic functions as well.

I have coined the term gene sharing to mean the same protein can serve several different functions.

What a paradox! It’s impossible to function without reference names, yet names often give false impressions of the true, complex nature of the items! Names can be both essential and misleading simultaneously. How about that for the ingredients of chaos?

Does changing the name change the essence of what is named?

Even William Shakespeare explores the nature of names in the play Romeo and Juliet, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.” Is he implying that naming is irrelevant, that it’s the sweet odor of a rose that identifies it, not its name? It could be called a tulip and still have the properties of a rose. Ah, yes, but what if everyone called a “rose” by a different name? Saying a flower has a “sweet smell” doesn’t tell you it’s a rose.

Evolution in language is to be expected, but…

Deeper analysis, recognition of complexity, and evolution of language are all part of greater understanding and progress. Naturally, I favor such advancement. However, as Paul Krugman implies, care should be taken not to use this confusion of language and names to twist simplicity and precedence. When a name works, why fix it? (Of course, racial, or other slurs cannot be tolerated.)

There will always be layers of knowledge and meaning, whatever names are used.

We must think and speak more comprehensively, not unnecessarily change one confusing name for another and complicate our language.