Worrying about whether the drug fits into the dictionary usage of the word is being overly pedantic.
And I wasn't suggesting that we should. I was suggesting that we should set some boundary on the meaning of terms when used in a technical context to prevent misleading ourselves and others.
Words such as "dank" etc have all had their meaning rapidly change in the last few years. Words change and that is how language works. Dictionary definitions mean nothing.
No one here disputes that. It's commonly accepted that the original definition of "nootropic" is unworkable for the purposes of the community. It's quite a stretch to suggest that the fluidity of language renders communicative precision permanently immaterial.
If you work in a technical field, you understand that while the meanings of words are constantly changing, that does not diminish the importance of ensuring that the people with whom you communicate technical concepts clearly understand your meaning. A big part of that is having regular conversations about what technical terms do, and should, mean in order to facilitate efficient and accurate exchange of information.
I view the perfect healthy brain as extremely intelligent. Everyone has "something" that separates their brain from that very efficient brain. Why is there even a need to differentiate between "diseases" and "accepted cognitive deficits"? They are all just cognitive deficits. A nootropic IMO is still a nootropic if it treats some cognitive deficit that we categorize as a disease.
This is a very interesting ontological distinction that is far from settled. While I find it somewhat persuasive, it smacks of the fallacy of the beard. Still, it is a good enough point that, as I said in response to /u/m00k0w's post, I'm now convinced that the term is being used to sufficient precision by the community assuming we continue to be vigilant about educating newcomers about responsible risk reduction strategies.
I could probably go on, but really this topic doesn't matter at all — it is more of a philosophical debate with no real answer.
No "right" answer would be more accurate. As you are fond of noting, the idea of a word keeping a consistent meaning is in defiance of nature. So is all technology. Words are tools for accomplishing tasks. In science, technical terms are only as useful as they are clear and communicative. The fact that we get to decide what they mean doesn't mean that we should take that right for granted. We should bring it out in the open, discuss it, and decide on the most useful choice.
There was no "real" specification for a serial bus port, but that doesn't mean it was pointless for the USB-IF to publish a standard.
Usage of a word is dictated by society and there isn't really a point in fighting against it or discussing it. I'd rather think about stuff that really matters like science etc.
Language evolves with society on its own. Science progresses only when it has sufficiently precise language to efficiently aggregate vastly distributed contributions. Linguistic precision, far from being irrelevant to science, is absolutely necessary to it.
However, I agree that my original post takes the issue unnecessarily far, and I admitted as much before you responded.