The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, section 5.6
Language may be the most powerful tool we have, and I believe it must be used responsibly. But what is language? What’s a tool? What does it mean to use it responsibly?
Such questions are deceptively simple, because ‘everyone knows’ what language is, and what tools are. However, while there is an enormous amount of scientific research into both language and tool use, science is not really the right tool to answer questions like these, because that’s not what it’s for.
Philosopher and biologist Massimo Pigliucci provides a high-level definition of science, noting that it
deals with the study and understanding of natural phenomena, and is concerned with empirically (i.e., either observationally or experimentally) testable hypotheses advanced to account for those phenomena.
This addresses a vast range of questions regarding, for example, how languages work, how they evolve, and how they interact, but does not address the fundamental questions of how we should define and understand the basic concepts. Questions like that are more in the realm of the philosophy of science.
Consider language. For most of us, the word refers to the spoken form we use for everyday communication. But what about the written form? Do emojis count as language? What about sign language? Is it still ‘language’ if we’re trying to communicate with non-human animals? Do non-human animals have language? Are computer ‘language’” really languages? How might we decide how to answer questions like these?
Similarly, defining the word ‘tool’ is more complex than it appears on the surface. A 2025 article in Philosophy of Science, “Tool Use Beyond Humans” by Dani and Ramsey, reviews various definitions of the term ‘tool use’, notes that they are overly broad and inconsistent, discusses a proposal to use the term ‘tooling’ as a replacement, and offers “a synthetic approach” that attempts to meet the needs of the broader scientific community. A paper to suggest a framework for defining the word ‘tool’ may seem pedantic, but precision and completeness are vital elements of both science and philosophy.
And that brings us to jargon. Jargon is your frenemy.
If you are a member of a group (and everyone is), you will use some form of jargon. In linguistic terms, every word has a denotation, which refers to its literal meaning, and a connotation, which includes cultural and emotional associations.
Sometimes, terms (such as ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’) are limited to a specific area or context, and a listener will either understand the word and its meaning, or not. And, while some terms might have multiple technical meanings, it is usually relatively easy to avoid confusion.
As an example, take the word ‘shard’. If you’re talking about London, England, you may be referring to The Shard, formerly known as the London Bridge Tower. If you’re talking about distributed databases, the term refers to a design principle for organising data in large systems. For most of us, though, it’s a generic term, referring to a sharp piece of glass, pottery, or stone.
Or, if you’re at a party, and someone refers to an asteroid crashing into the Earth, it’s obvious what they are talking about, and we should all resist the urge to say: “Well, actually, it’s only an asteroid when it orbits the sun. If it burns up in the atmosphere, it’s a meteor, and if there’s anything left after it hits, it’s a meteorite.” If you’re with a group of astrophysics enthusiasts, though, you’ve just identified yourself as someone non-technical, and you may be in for a crash-course on astronomy…
But what about deliberate misuse of terms which have technical meanings?
How many of us have heard variations on the phrase: “Evolution is just a theory”?
Colloquially, most people use the word “theory” to refer to a guess, conjecture, or speculation about something, so they see nothing wrong with this statement. In scientific terms, however, a ‘theory’ is “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena”.
As evidence of my ‘theory’ that most people don’t understand the difference, evolution deniers usually act as if evolution is some sort of Jenga tower, as in the well-known xkcd comic, where refuting one statement will cause the whole edifice to collapse. Instead, however, it’s more like climbing the Great Pyramid, and removing a pebble from the top.
But why would I hypothesise (to use a more appropriate term) that most people don’t understand the different uses of the word ‘theory’, and that the misuse is deliberate?
If you dig into creationism on, for example, here at The Skeptic, you quickly find that most of the arguments put forth are unscientific, usually incoherent, and almost always directly contradicted by an enormous body of scientific evidence. While I consider most of the consumers and spreaders of such ideas to be victims of this disinformation, I find it difficult to imagine that the generators of such material can do so without deliberate intent.
For effective communication, we need to be aware of both the value and the danger of jargon, and not fall into the trap of thinking that the meaning of a word is obvious to ourselves or others. In particular, try to be aware of jargon, loaded language, and dog whistles, so that you can understand and be understood as clearly as possible.
Always try to follow the principle of charity, and assume that people usually argue in good faith.
I believe that people making absurd and dishonest arguments are most often mistaken or misled, rather than malicious, and that our best response is to be honest and to promote critical thinking. I know that’s technically an argument from incredulity, but that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
In any case, that’s my current hypothesis, and it emphasises the need for us to always try to use the right tool for the right job.
