Forgive me for rambling but do you see what I am getting at?
Actually, Bazza, I don't.
I don't think anyone objects to the idea of experimentation and creativity. What's under fire is the progressive broadenting of standard terms to the point they may become meaningless. Ferran certainly has pushed the culinary limits. But he doesn't take one of his creations using molecular gastronomy and slap a classic name to it.
While it's true that language evolves, it should do so in a rational progression. Your example of brulee is perfect. What we see is a broadening of the word so that instead of applying to one specific dessert it is used to describe the technique. If you call something a brulee, most cooks would immediately know that somewhere along the line you're going to glaze the dish with sugar and hit it with a torch.
Look at the various ways presented in this forum for making tomato "confit." Not only are they different, they do not describe confit as we know the technique. Indeed, if we accept these approaches as confitting, then anytime you oil something and pop it in the oven you could call it a confit. Which makes the term, from the viewpoint of communicating, meaningless.
It's like when the health-food proponents instruct is to "saute in a little water....." Say what? Just how do you do that, when cooking in liquid is, variously, steaming, poaching, boiling, or stewing?
Or when, to shirtail on Ed's comment, the MC or judges on Chopped describe something as a "zucchini carpaccio." Excuse me? Does that mean anything you serve raw is a carpaccio? Hmmmmmm? I'll have a dozen oysters, please. Make 'em carpaccio.
The simple fact is that you can call barnyard effluent rosewater if you want. But it remains bulls*it.