| Kommentar | whether such expressions are correct is a debate as old as science itself, and probably having its roots in science as it was still carried out by witch-doctors, meaning that there was a great interest in keeping the knowledge you had to yourself, and to your other witch-doctors.
many modern observers of scientific, and other jargons, lament the fact that scientists appear to spend more and more time thinking up new words for old clothes, or giving old words new suits, resulting in texts that only insiders can understand, thus making their researches appear very deep, very wise, very necessary, and again, very worthy of financial support.
since, in English, there is no difference between a scientific reliability, and a normal one, why on earth should there be in German? are German scientists so insecure, or their readers so poorly trained, that they cannot imagine a test being Zuverlässig, but have to invent new words, and make it Reliabel (isn't that the logical adjective, then, from Reliabilität...), just as praktikabel is the bastard of practical, instead of the honest, clear, concise precision of machbar or umsetzbar.
pfui, sog I!!
this rant aside - your suggestion still is missing some indication that the word Reliabilität (what a horror!) is a piece of jargon. As to your claim that this is a normal word - if that is the case - prove it! - show me a handful of normal German newspaper texts (say FAZ, Zeit, and Bild) using the word in a normal context, and I'll hand the show over to you! |
|---|
