I got into a bit of a discussion with my wife (who has a B.S. in world history and a masters in ancient Korean history) about the concept of the [middle ages]. I am nowhere near as accomplished with only basic and introductory level knowledge of world history along with pieces of information i've gathered from my time surfing the internet.

She takes the side of one of her professors that it is an inaccurate way to describe a period of time (nearly 1000 years) that was full of advancement (knowledge and technology) and important events that it creates a sort of misnomer to call it "the middle ages". Also that it spans a period of time that many historians can't fully agree on the start and end of its dates.

I argue that while there was some advancement, the painfully slow spread of the technology (for example gunpowder from china to Europe) coupled with the insanely large numbers of population death from the black plague, genghis kahn's kingdom, china's conquests, the catholic and jewish crusades, and the destruction of libraries and scientific publications by the spanish inquisition that much of that time period is lost to history and large parts of the scientific growth had to be recreated. I argue that many of these events compounded on top of each other slowing the cultural and scientific growth of the known world during that millennia.

My question is: Is she correct in saying that "the middle ages" is a misnomer and should be taught differently? Or is it accurate enough to describe that time period?

edit: words for clarity.