Alex Powell

No. It is about creating useful models. Why you cut off half of the sentence and thus alter the meaning of the whole statement? Would everybody act like that we shall get nowhere. First of all, there are different fields of science, and not all of them just only "create useful models", secondly you will notice the quotiation marks around the word "really" so that could be a clue, not to take it literaly (a simple semantic convention you should be aware of) thirdly just perceive the rest of the tore-apart-sentence. Finally it is the curiosity about the "real" world (note again the quotiation marks) that drives people (who do science) after all.

At present time every scientificly interested person is facing a gigantic sophisticated ready-to-immerse body of knowledge - happy times for all inquisitives. Unfortunately, there is a huge terminological problem around, namely that a relevant amount of natural phenomena or scientific laws are foolishly named after people's names, instead of been well classified into a solid consistent terminology of their respective area of science. At least in my view, depicted situation massivly hinders people to get right into adequate conceptual thinking about nature on a deep scale. If one like to think deeply about molecular biology, common rules of motion, black holes, QED, nature of spacetime, matter or energy - why he should bother about and bear in mind dozens of names of real people of history, who already walked along these topics too? And what has Newton to do with force measurings, Lorenz with relativity effects, Lagrange with motions of orbits or Alzheimer with brain diseases in the first place? Yes, they helped menkind to get the knowledge, but nature itself does not depend on consciousness beings, to work as it works. Science is about discovering things as they "really" are or at least to approximate own understanding as close to reality as possible. Assumed that reality exists and I want to understand some details, I'm pretty sure those details do not depend on people, who discovered them. My approach would be to honour scientific progress by some kind of "hall of fame" , which should be well-known to everybody. And when every worthy person landed there, there would be a renaming task left over, namely to rename all eponymous terms, related to real natural phenomena. Is there already some work / effort known to public on that topic? P.S. Sorry for my inconsistent english, i'm not native.

This is not a scientific question and not a proper question at all. You and your supervisor (if not imaginary) will not get any usable results on described issue according to your writings. His lack of adequate profundity has already ruined all plans, before they began. In a nutshell: just drop the issue and do something else. You will avoid very much useless stress. Just a professional hint from someone, who has much experiene on software engineering and realising projects.