This is very much not a casual setting. What you refer to is the principle that sometimes, when enough people make a mistake often enough, smart/knowledgeable people can't be bothered to correct them anymore. It's the same with "literally" (can be used to mean figuratively) or using "could care less" (wrong) "could not care less" (correct) interchangeably to describe that something doesn't interest you.
The author used it to describe the view from Earth/solar system people's perspective. There is loads more leeway when it comes to natives of another system. Although them calling their star specifically "Sol" as well would be ridiculous.
And just to make that clear, I'm not angry or anything, take my perceived seriousness with a fistful of salt. All this is meant for fun and as constructive criticism for a problem that can be easily fixed once understood. This is a science fiction novel, so use as much actual science as possible.
*They* wouldn't call it "Sol"--but, as I said, that
might be the only correct translation we are able to provide for ourselves from their language. The *meaning* of a "Name" is as or more important to people than the actual definition of the words in the name.
(Examples: *They* might call their dogs, "P*&^%$#!fs", But since we can't pronounce that *and* those things look, act, and sound like Earth-dogs, *we* are likely to call them "dogs". They might call their star "(somethingincomprehensiblelight)" that seems very much like why we call our star, "Sun" or "Sol", we will likely call it "their Sun".)
BTW, the author is also aware--but the reader will find out, soon--that the system is inhabited, so we can cut them some slack in this instance. As a science enthusiast--as am I--you might want to apply scientific observation to the literature and ask, "So, why did the author call it a 'solar system' rather than a 'star system'? Is the author perhaps using the phrase chosen--accidently or with purpose--correctly?" [Yes,
Godzilla the monster is an abomination of all things real (and scientific, too). But the idea that humans must deal with the results of their abuses and mismanagement of technology
is science fiction! Now, if we could get movie makers to focus on that type of conflict that has few visual effects and demands that viewers think about ideas and consequences rather than passively watch adventures, then they probably wouldn't make the movie ...]
And, I thoroughly understand your desire for science in science fiction (see "Godzilla", above), but anthropology, biology, and linguistics are sciences, too--and understanding of those will help us temper *our* misapplication of sciences because of our
humanocentric biases that creep into physical sciences because we are human. Remember biases--thoses things
we try to remove from our observations and conclusions through scientific processes? Even photosynthesis cells in plants use the quantum particle/wave duality of light otherwise
photosynthesis would be too slow--and that is *very* basic biology, but the field of physics wouldn't have believed that only 40 years ago! (Trust me, I was there, fighting against both my physics
AND biology teachers on that exact subject ... because
they each were biased against the other "sciences"--their quotation marks, not mine.)
e-d
P.S.: The phrase "solar system" is humano-centric, as you have pointed out. But forcing other cultures to call their homes "star systems" is also humano-centric ...
Edit: added P.S.
