> If we ignore the loaded colloquial use of the word...

Be careful perceiving subjective terms ("loaded") as objective (unless I'm misinterpreting your meaning....in which case, never mind / pardon me).

> Stuff that is not deterministic would not be strictly classified as "chaos" in my opinion...

Should not may be more appropriate, considering that we are dealing with human beings here. But again, we're still dealing with the "by definition" phenomenon, or "the word has the appearance of being the thing", particularly at runtime.

> Chaos is the name of an observed phenomena.

Which is fundamentally, an appearance/perspective, as opposed to the phenomena itself.

> Chaos Theory is the name of the branch of science that studies that phenomena.

Aspires to study it, technically.

> Bro what are you smoking...

In this case: ontology and epistemology.

> ...we've studied plenty of chaotic phenomena the whole idea of chaos is that you can have deterministic functions that produce pseudorandom output.

I don't disagree with this, my general beef is that I get the feeling that there is a tendency for people to lean towards the conclusion that random output is necessarily derived from deterministic phenomena, and that this bias is falsely (but not with intent - see: lying vs speaking untruthfully) framed as being ~scientific/logical.

> All of the entire corpus of scientific literature is based on the fact that we haven't found an exception to this rule yet.

This is an ontological & epistemic manner, and is also inherently subjective (but may have the appearance of being objective. See: "we are dealing with human beings here".

> How can you imply there is not significant consensus on this issue?

I don't believe I have done this, have I? If you can quote my text I'd appreciate it, because that would be an error on my part I'd think. I suspect it's simply a standard misunderstanding.

>> I find it odd how seemingly close minded and insular science has become in the 21st century, which is rather contrary to the self-serving self-description of the domain and the actors within it.

> I find it wack how smarmy people can be when they don't understand the basics of what they are talking about.

I think this is a classic subjective vs objective misunderstanding, probably some cultural "colloquial communication" norms are in play as well.

Let's investigate:

>> ....when they don't understand the basics of what they are talking about.

What is it that you believe that I do not understand the basics of?