ergophobe - 2:43 pm on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

This is typical of the fallacies that historians of science run up against all the time. Scientists are always writing after the fact about why they did something, but when you study their lab notes, it's often simply untrue.

Does anyone believe for a minute that at the very least the name was meant to be clever and to mean both and to be intentionally confusing?