<p>People working in particular areas tend to embrace slightly different terminology from people working in other areas, and both may use the terminology differently to mainstream statisticians. </p>

<p>So for example you might see 'force of decrement' used by an actuary (moreso in the past than now) where a statistician might say 'hazard', for example, and such differences persist in every corner of statistics.</p>

<p>These differences come in from psychology, biology, physics, astronomy, econometrics, marketing, and so on (and on).</p>

<p>I don't think it's really up to us to dictate what's 'proper' terminology -- if enough people are using it to talk to each other, even if it's in some small niche application area, it should as far as possible be embraced. </p>

<p>The main caveat would be in the case where there's a very strong chance that a terminology will be very directly misleading, in which case at the very least we need to be very careful to clarify what's going on and in some cases (as few as possible) perhaps call for going with the more conventional terminology.</p>
