Words and Changing Definitions

So, I want to start today with Bugs Bunny.  Or more specifically, Bugs Bunny interacting with Elmer Fudd.  

I found a meme recently talking about Bugs referring to Elmer as "nimrod."  I remember watching the particular cartoon in question and not understanding that word at the time.  I understood that Bugs was some level of disrespectful toward Elmer, meaning that, surely, "nimrod" was foolish or some kind of idiot.  The meme explained that this term actually refers to a mighty biblical hunter, meaning that Bugs was actually saying something along the lines of "What are you looking for, hunter?" which is sarcastic, maybe, but not a slur.  Basically how Bugs first addresses him in the Wagner opera piece ("Kill the Wabbit") with "Oh mighty hunter of great fighting stock..." is exactly what he's said before, if more floridly.  

Just a couple examples, I'm pretty sure neither of these are using it to mean "great hunter."  And that continues for the half-dozen other cartoon and show clips I found using the word.  

But that doesn't mean that the word, capitalized or otherwise no longer has that meaning.  It just means that its context is all the more important.  Let's take the word "nonplussed."  

In short, there are two definitions there that mean the exact opposite thing.  The word represents both.  The context is incredibly important to understand the intention of the word.  As a different example, the word "quite" has some sarcastic undertones in the UK, as I understand it, meaning that calling someone "quite pretty" in the Midwest usually means "lovely" but "quite pretty" in the UK seems to be a backhanded way to say "not pretty," but, you know, politely.    

What we're getting into, here, is connotative vs denotative language.  A word starts with a particular meaning and over time it can develop additional or slightly different meanings.  Grammar works this way, too.  With enough usage, words get added into the dictionary and grammatical rules loosen in certain contexts.  Language evolves.  Language moves.  The part that is there, in the dictionary or following strict grammatical flow, that's denotative--anyone who is strict on the rules because "thems the rules."  The kind that is looking at additional implications or following the flow of how words are spoken by native speakers, that's more connotative.  I used to be hardcore denotative, until it was pointed out to me that sometimes those rules are used to reinforce stereotypes and systemic ideas on poverty, class, and race that were not worth clinging to so fervently.  In short, I bend to the context--it something needs formal English, it's going to get it; if something is informal for a Facebook post, maybe I don't need to rush in with corrections, provided it's still understandable.  

All of this is fascinating to think about, and I want to throw one more very specific example out there.  

Theory.  Denotatively, it means a proposed explanation for something.  Connotatively and colloquially, it's an idea about how something might have happened or come about, one or a couple persons lightheartedly making a simple conclusion or in a crime drama, seriously drawing conclusions based on a few pieces of evidence and active camera shots.  

But in science, it means something much different.  In a scientific context, it's jargon.  It is not as flippant as it is used outside of science.  The way we use the word "theory" colloquially is closer to "hypothesis."  A scientific theory is a collective of hypotheses that have been tested when possible or using abductive reasoning when it is not.  Theories can be refined over time, sure, but a theory has been vetted and is continually vetted by the scientific method.  A scientific theory is not "just a theory."  It is a scientific theory, but to make things easier we sometimes leave out that important qualifier, which I suspect is how some of this confusion happened in the first place.  In short, when we talk about theory in science--a scientific theory--it has a denotative gravitas that is sometimes forgotten in the connotative context.  And yet, it does not mean that the gravitas isn't there.  

Speaking of gravitas, let's talk gravity.  Laws are a step above scientific theory.  There are Laws of gravity, that describe how gravity behaves, but how gravity is there in the first place, it's a scientific theory.  It's a collection of vetted observations, tested hypotheses, and other evidence to explain how gravity works.  I have yet to hear anyone refer to gravity as "just a theory," but we also have flat-earthers in this day in age.  

And I'm sure some of you have already connected where some of this argument may have originated:  "It's just a theory" is casually thrown against the concept of evolution rather liberally.  All this particular argument boils down to is a patent misunderstanding of a piece of scientific jargon.  In my head, it's like reducing my diagnosis of Crohn's Disease to "just a tummyache:"  it oversimplifies the concept and ideas into absurdity.  Scientific theories aren't something to "believe" in--they can have good evidence that needs to be incorporated in to potentially shift parts of the theory, but it's not a matter of belief and unbelief.  Scientific theories are used to explain parts of the observable world--science deals with the "how" something works or came to be; philosophy and religion sort with the "why."   Different questions, different tools, different words and jargon.  Using the same word to mean two different connotations is bound to lead to additional confusion, but to assume that they're always the same is only going to increase confusion.  

In short, when I hear the "it's just a theory" argument, I see this in my head:

BONUS ROUND:  How do you tell the difference between an electrician and a chemist?  Get them to pronounce "unionize."