Author
|
Topic: Laymen and Scientiffic language. (Read 530 times) |
|
gaiaguerrilla
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 58
Reputation: 5.78
Rate gaiaguerrilla
 
|
 |
Laymen and Scientiffic language.
« on: 2005-12-03 16:29:51 » |
 |
NOTE: Please save yourself time and skip to my summary, unless you can stand the long-winded confusion.
It may sound premature, but I've googled certain words and phrases from this post- and because I can't find exactly what I'm looking for, that's evidence enough that I'm not reinventing the wheel. It'll certainly touch on what other authors have expressed, and feedback is welcome.
Question on Laymen and Scientiffic language.
It's a shame that common language is not as lucid as science. With every new discovery or argument, new terminology is necessary to make the point clear, yet at the same time further diffuse our clear understanding of meaning. We see these kinds of deviations especially comparing philosophic and scientiffic terms.
For example- take "atom" and "quantum." Atom in philosophy is generally the smallest portion of a concept that you can divide it into. But when atom was defined by physics as the particle with an electron shell (the particle that couldn't yet be "split"), the smaller pieces of the atom were then further defined . . . to the point of a quantum- which is a photon or meson. Hence, the quantum is an atom in our physics knowledge. This gets too confusing.
Science generally uses latin, and this fact represents how strongly scientists share that same goal- a shared, sensible language. But latin is still a cultural-based language. Not fundamentally a scientiffic language.
Once you bring these terms into more common language, definitions are corrupted into vagrity. I believe that although we've made a lot of scientiffic strides, humanity is also suffering an unfair elitism in which intelligence is less applied by your ability to juggle concepts, and moreso applied by your discipline in proper definition. The two are necessary, but people that could be making grand discoveries in thought are perhaps instead getting bogged down with just understanding the words of what they're talking about.
With the excessive use of logic today, I think there's a solution to be found that will allow more common people to achieve more frequent scientiffic ideas without the need for rigorous life-long definition exercise. We must learn to think, more than learn to define.
Computers have become the miracle-tool when it comes to transferring words into definition, logic, and back to clean understandable common translation. To answer the question: "Can a computer ever write the great American novel?" Maybe not, but it's not important. Can a computer ever write and update comprehensive textbooks? Likely yes, and probably in revolutionary format.
I believe that computers could some day soon translate all those crucial scientiffic words into concepts. The difference is that today computers only bridge our knowledge with translations. Say: One keystroke with one graphic, one click on a hyperlink with a new domain. They don't mean anything to the computer, they only connect. But can it categorize a concept of what it's investigating, rather than sole connection? It may not have to think, but it could still "understand" and help us better think, and in a sense talk.
Here's the rub . . . I don't think the bridge is to be completed solely from computers. Half the bridge of better communication is to be built from human intellect - not just some but all. People must learn to communicate in a way more pallettable to a computer in order to allow the computer to better aid them. This new language is for the purpose of scientiffic understanding, but it's required that we adopt it as our native language as a race. Nothing I would expect from people in our current struggles.
When I speak of this human side of the bridge, I'm not referring to computer lingo that people in the computer sciences use today. This is yet again a branching off of terms for scientiffic purposes, which just diffuses laymen language further. Naturally, we shouldn't just wait for the absolute perfect word when we have important things to discuss immediately. But should we really assume that every new student is required to fight through an elitist wordy jungle to attain her discipline? We want her to make discoveries in concepts, not necessarily fill her head with obscure definition.
I want to see such a language develop where our speach is automatically in its relevant context, and its lettering or phonics is automatically a logical transfer from those subjects closest to it. Latin does this crudely, by making words almost entirely out of prefixes and suffixes. It suffices for now. But what if, for example, propositional logic had a phonic for each symbol? Think of the possible strides when we can speak formulas with one another, without a hint of confusion. Or the efficiency of research if a person can break a word into its smaller portions and know the exact definition just by doing so.
SUMMARY
We can build a language that can become native to us and that follows a rigid logical pattern- one that communicates well with computers. This would help those of us that speak it to think of profound things more quickly, and research more effectively.
|
I've become the official property of a 10-year-old girl.
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Laymen and Scientiffic language.
« Reply #1 on: 2005-12-04 01:02:24 » |
|
Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem. Ego innutum ut lingua Latine necessarius est!
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.93
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Laymen and Scientiffic language.
« Reply #2 on: 2005-12-04 17:28:44 » |
|
You may be interested in investigating Lojban.
|
|
|
|
|
gaiaguerrilla
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 58
Reputation: 5.78
Rate gaiaguerrilla
|
|
Re:Laymen and Scientiffic language.
« Reply #3 on: 2005-12-14 23:59:18 » |
|
Thanks, David and Hermit. Since I followed your link, I've been reading a lot about Lojban. I remember looking at this a long time ago then leaving it aside and forgetting about it. I do still think that Lojban is somewhat culturally derived, words are partly organized by elements of concepts, but with phoenetic roots to other common languages. This comes closest to what I'm talking about. That said, I added a blurb on top of my first post.
|
I've become the official property of a 10-year-old girl.
|
|
|
|
Logged
