The 1 word that gives climate change deniers so much power

It’s just a ‘theory’

There are ways to re-frame how Democrats discuss their positions so the words they use better reflect their values. Examining how we talk about things like empathy or regulations could help moderate conservatives (if such a thing exists anymore) see the Democratic point of view in a more positive light.

But there’s one word that Democrats should reexamine for a completely different reason. It’s a word those on the far right have twisted to their advantage not because it seems too soft or too liberal, but because its meaning is often misunderstood. And that ambiguity provides just the opening some conservatives need to muddy up the conversation.

The word is theory.

Scientific theories aren’t really theories

When we talk about scientific theories in articles or in debates about public policy, we never define for the public what a scientific theory actually means. Because we don’t do so, we’re allowing the everyday meaning of theory and the scientific meaning of theory to carry the same weight. So any crackpot theory can be discussed in the same sentence as the theory of global warming or theory of evolution, and it’s actually taken seriously.

From middle school science class on, we’re taught about what goes into a scientific theory. Basically, it’s an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. It’s a method to interpret facts and continuously validate them through rigorous scientific method. We’re taught that a scientific theory is not a hunch, it’s not a guess, and it’s definitely not just an idea that someone thought up until someone else comes along with a better one. (There are much better explanations from actual science folks here and here.)

Why more education and more facts won’t cut it

It’s been argued that we just need better education around science. And that may be true.

But we can talk about facts and the need for more education until we run out of breath. It’s not going to change people’s minds if they still have dueling ideas of what a theory is. Or if they already think one way, and facts aren’t going to change their minds. They’re always going to fall back on the definition that’s the easiest to understand quickly and intuitively. Which means a theory will almost always be understood to mean a general guess or an idea to explain how something works.

And that dual meaning gives far right conservatives the opportunity to sow doubt about a scientific theory’s validity. Because a scientific theory is still just a theory, after all.

That means anyone can come up with alternate theories, like the theory of creationism, and argue that it’s just as valid as the “theory” of evolution. And a lot of people will buy the argument.

This deliberate twisting of language can have grave consequences and a lasting impact

Just this month, Florida passed a law allowing anyone to challenge anything taught in public schools.

Not just district parents bringing their concerns to the local school board. Anyone who has a grievance or supports an alternate theory. Anyone who thinks that the theory of global warming is too unsettled, anyone who considers the theory of evolution to be too controversial, or anyone who is worried that material might be too un-American, can bring his or her concerns to an “unbiased hearing officer” not employed by the school district. If the issue is thought to have merit, the school has to take the offending material out of the classroom.

Seriously. Anyone can bog down the textbook selection process and force schools to choose watered down materials that don’t teach science basics, just because he or she is offended at the “theories” they’re trying to pass off as “facts.”

See, it’s a small leap from the casual use of the two different meanings of “theory” to the implementation of dangerous, willfully ignorant laws like the crap show going on in Florida.

Changing how we talk about scientific theories might make the intent clearer

What are some of the ways we could reframe the idea so we don’t have to patiently explain the long set of facts that support our position, only to watch our conservative friends’ eyes glaze over? We need to work on a shorthand way to get at the meaning.

One example might be to stop talking about the Theory of Climate Change. Maybe we could position it as “Scientifically proven climate change” or “The 97% scientific consensus on climate change” instead. Something repeatable, memorable, and true that doesn’t allow the far right to take advantage of people’s indifference to the dual meaning.

The deliberate twisting of a theory’s scientific meaning is a shame. In most instances, when we’re looking to reframe how progressives see things, it’s so we can better discuss how we really feel about issues in a truer and more empathetic light. But in this instance, it’s imperative that we change how we talk about something because the idea is being willfully distorted.

This is a case where “words will never hurt me” just isn’t true.