Practitioners of System Dynamics have long lamented the slow rate of acceptance of System Dynamics by business, government, academics and other organizations. Essential to the acceptance of any new idea or innovation is the ability for its advocates to clearly and simply state what the concept is. This paper investigates the idea that a part of the problem may be attributable to the practice of its practitioners to position System Dynamics as both a field of study and an applied methodology. This mixed message creates a classic Watzlawick double bind paradox in which the field appears to define the methodology and the methodology appears to define the field. This paper argues it can not be both if the Society expects to succeed in its goal to increase the acceptance of System Dynamics, whether it be a field or a methodology. The author proposes an approach for decoupling the method from the field by developing separate terms and distinct operational definitions for each that are not self-referential and explores the implications to the method, the field and its practitioners.