Whilst she's correct on matters like the popular misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest" I think she's wrong about words like "theory" or "proof" being scientific words which the public misuses. These are ordinary words with ordinary meanings in everyday speech, however scientists use them an a technical and more specific sense. The same applies to all activities, professional and otherwise, because specialists need more specific language and need to make finer distinctions than non-specialists.

For me, the words "file" or "saw" are sufficient, whereas they actually cover a range of tools. A plumber or a carpenter needs to distinguish between the different sorts and uses more precise language to describe them. To a plumber, the phrase "round bastard" means a file - to me it means a plumber :)

The problem she quotes about the public misunderstanding scientists' use of 'proof' is a classic example of the misuse of jargon. The onus should be on the specialist to present their ideas in non-specialist language, rather than on the public to learn the specialists' jargon (and it is when they attempt to do this that the other misunderstandings and misuses arise that she also complains about). The fault lies not with the public but with the scientists for failing to use non-technical language in a debate with non-specialists.