"hijacking terms" is a great image, but I find the term "sublate" as it ties the problem into modern philosophy. 

Of course the problem is ancient. Socrates did not like writing down his thoughts as he realized that Sophists could make him look a fool by changing the definition of a term.

Since Socrates did not write down his arguments, Socrates gave Plato the opportunity to hijack his reputation.

BTW, your discussion of science echoes my beliefs. Science is a method of discovery. Anyone who employs the scientific method is being scientific. Unfortunately, science is morally ambivalent. A pimp who scientifically grooms children from child-trafficking is being scientific. A megalomaniac who uses the scientific method is being a scientist when using the scientific method to commit genocide.

Morality questions are not answered by "science."

Some define "political science" is the application of the scientific method to the pursuit of political power. This definition is common on both the right and left. A political scientist could poll the people and figure out how to present a party in a way that will increase the party's chance of gaining power.

Applying science to politics can get people in office, but it does not guarantee that the politician will be good for the people. I think that people who gain power through such manipulation tend to be bad leaders.

While I like the scientific method, my observation is that no matter how one argues the issue, science and politics simply don't mix.

The US founders were trained in classical logic. I think they were hoping for a Republic where legislators engaged in deliberative discourse founded on classical logic. Unfortunately, schools no longer teach logic.