I'm saying: observe the broad range of epistemic territory covered by the word "refute" (the first definition is a blend of complete incorrectness and not absolutely perfect, the second is literally subjective opinion, ie: "at least one human holds this opinion"), something that seems rather untroubling to people (believing themselves to be) considering the truth of this theory. (See also if you can spot any other instances of this sort of thing in this thread, or all other threads).

I wonder how Westerners would react to a new word being invented that directly references this phenomenon, and I also wonder whether doing that would have zero effect on people's cognition (which is essentially what is being claimed impossible), especially if they were reminded of its existence every time the common habit of speaking ambiguously/meaninglessly arose.

Such a word would have to sustain substantial memetic attack though, cultural "truths" are usually defended passionately. I think the most that could be achieved in this culture and era is adoption in the counterculture scene.

As for whether he doesn't "prove" it false: which of the many conflicting meanings of the word "prove" (or "doesn't" for that matter) would we be using, and would it even be possible to achieve a demonstration of it, that people who despise taking the meanings of words seriously could agree on?