IMHO part of the problem stems from teaching without carefully stating the nature of what is explained. A teacher should check that the audience reasonably knows what 'convention' means, how it differs from 'abstraction', 'truth', 'theory', 'measured fact'...

Bonus: explicitly recognizing that many terms (along with other conventions) aren't adequate. According to the knowledge of those who coined them they appeared adequate at the time, and replacing them may induce confusions, would condemn existing knowledge and writings, and isn't perfectly effective as the new convention may even prove inadequate later. I used to say that we may consider them as tributes to the the wonderful people who coined them.