In English there is frequently a difference between the scientific or technical definition of a word and the common everyday usage definition of a word. Therefore, when encountering a word, one does have to be careful whether it is being used in a strict technical sense, or with its looser everyday meaning. I dare say the same is true in other languages?
Sure, I agree; but I'd go even further in that the definition in strict technical sense varies!
A perfect example of this is the order of operations in mathematics (
PEMDAS,
BEDMAS,
BIDMAS et cetera). Some insist it is fixed and universal, but it isn't; the conventions do vary.
My point above was to point out one of the definitions for a water wheel and a turbine, that explain the disagreement. It does not need to be universally acceptable, as it just points out that some might use a different definition; and this definition/misunderstanding is the cause of the disagreement.
Thus, the disagreement is one of
definitions, not of concepts or models. It is not an useful disagreement, because it will not lead to new understanding for anyone.
For this exact reason, I highly appreciate it when someone describes their key definitions and abbreviations. For example, I might write "water wheel (tangential flow) instead of a turbine (axial flow)" in some sentence, including the key detail of the definition in parentheses, to indicate what is important in the distinction. If someone disagrees, that is fine; that was just the context and definition in that post. Even if you disagree on the definition, the use is fine as long as the definition is sufficiently clear to convey the idea/concept/model/argument. (I often change terms mid-way through, if a consensus on a different definition emerges in context. The terms themselves or jargon is not important, they're just surface gloss. What is important, is conveying the desired message/idea/concepts/arguments/models.)