I would guess something like historical momentum is the reason people keep using it. Nicholas Shackel coined the term in 2005, then it got popularized in 2014 from SSC. 20 years is a long time for people to be using the term.
20 years is a long time sure, but I don’t think would be good argument for keeping it! (I understand you’re likely just describing, not justifying)
Motte & bailey has a major disadvantage of “nobody who hears it for the first time has any understanding of what it means”
Even as someone who knows the concept, I’m still not even 100% positive that motte and bailey do in fact mean “overclaim and retreat” respectively
People are welcome to use the terms they want, of course. But I’d think there should be a big difference between M&B and some simpler name in order to justify M&B
I would guess something like historical momentum is the reason people keep using it. Nicholas Shackel coined the term in 2005, then it got popularized in 2014 from SSC. 20 years is a long time for people to be using the term.
20 years is a long time sure, but I don’t think would be good argument for keeping it! (I understand you’re likely just describing, not justifying)
Motte & bailey has a major disadvantage of “nobody who hears it for the first time has any understanding of what it means”
Even as someone who knows the concept, I’m still not even 100% positive that motte and bailey do in fact mean “overclaim and retreat” respectively
People are welcome to use the terms they want, of course. But I’d think there should be a big difference between M&B and some simpler name in order to justify M&B