posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:53 AM
The vast oceans of lexicography have been so utterly polluted that even a term such as "doublespeak" has fallen prey to the inane assumptions of
people who have relied so heavily upon contextual definitions rather than actually take the time to look the word up in a dictionary. In its simplest
terms "doublespeak" is any language that pretends to communicate but does not. Ironically this term has been erroneously attributed to George
Orwell and is believed by many to be a term he coined for his novel; 1984. However, Orwell never used the term "doublespeak" although he did use
terms such as "newspeak" and "oldspeak" and even "doublethink" which in their own way come close to what "double speak" means. The point is
that people have become so lazy about their definitions that it is not just the casual way in which conspiracies has become inextricably bound to
Even the word theory has lost its true meaning as well known theories such as Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory or the much more
recent HIV=AIDS Theory have become, for far too many, accepted as fact rather than acknowledged as theory. Thus, those who question the efficacy of
Darwin's increasingly crumbling, (in light of the multitudes of advances made in molecular biology), theory are labeled with such dubious "double
speak" terms as "evolution denialists" or "flat earther's" and even "creationists" even if those skeptics be atheists. More recently the
increasing number of scientists who have become vocal in challenging the established orthodoxy on the HIV=AIDS theory have been labeled "AIDS
denialists" even though not one single doctor or scientist from this group of skeptics over the prevailing theory have ever once questioned the
reality of AIDS.
Worse still are the scientists who have come to challenge the efficacy of the whole AGW theory who are quite regularly labeled "climate change
denialist's" even though not one of them claims that the Earth's climate does not change! They are called, just the same as those who question the
HIV orthodoxy "dissidents" as if either the AGW or the HIV theories are appropriately political issues rather than scientific issues. Science does
not have dissidents but politics do. In science, a theory is best tested by attempting to disprove it, which would make any true scientist then a
"dissident" if we are to accept the term as it has been so cavalierly bandied about.
When people are so foolishly willing to accept as law a theory there is no doubt a serious problem in the way theory has become defined. In science a
law would be a valid description of some physical feature of nature while a theory merely explains that feature but does not in any way describe it.
Theories are formed out of hypothesis in order to discover the law behind features and regardless of how seemingly sound that theory may be, they are
not laws of science. Yet, as ambitious politicians are apt to do, there is always a push to create legislation, itself passed off as law, and
increasingly legislation based on untested and unproven theories. Indeed, even legislation is not law but merely evidence of law and not actually
A terrorist was once one who used violent force against non military personnel in order to create terror amongst the general populace. Today the word
is used to describe peaceful agitators who rely upon protest to challenge the status quo. Words such as democracy, once meaning nothing more than mob
rule are now equated with absolute freedom. Those who question the current President of the United States policies are, by too many, immediately and
gleefully labeled racists.
Language is less and less being used as a tool to communicate and more and more being used as a tool to bludgeon our opponents with, desperately we
create all sorts of pejoratives to vilify our opponents rather than engaged in reasoned debate. Character assassination is the order of the day and
with our language too many of us have become terrorists of the lexicon using vocal violence in an attempt to silence those who dare to question or
challenge "conventional wisdom" when it is more likely that wisdom never has been and more tragically wont soon be anywhere near conventional.