From a New Theory of Vision (1709), section 120:

In treating of these things, the use of Language is apt to occasion some Obscurity and Confusion, and create in us wrong Ideas. For Language being accommodated to the common Notions and Prejudices of Men, it is scarce possible to deliver the naked and precise Truth, without great Circumlocution, Impropriety, and (to an unwary Reader) seeming Contradictions. I do therefore, once for all, desire whoever shall think it worth his while, to understand what I have written concerning Vision, that he’d not stick in this or that Phrase, or manner of Expression; but candidly collect my meaning from the whole Sum and Tenor of my Discourse; and laying aside the Words, as much as possible, consider the bare Notions themselves, and then judge whether they are agreeable to Truth and his own Experience, or no.

Without even discussing the topic of “these things”, I want to highlight a few claims he makes that are insightful.

• Natural language works for people even if it is biased, it isn’t precise or doesn’t correspond to reality exactly
• The specific words he’s using in a very precise, methodical way don’t have to match how normal people talk
• What matters is whether what he means is conveyed and what he’s saying is true to life

This is a lesson for the use of natural language and canonical, unambiguous, and theory-laden terms. You need both natural and formal language, and they are not functionally equivalent.