3 ms·

We're taught to think we understand. But do we? Language offers a black-and-white feeling we're clearly understanding something perfectly. That's an illusion, r

We're taught to think we understand. But do we? Language offers a black-and-white feeling we're clearly understanding something perfectly. That's an illusion, reinforced by years of approval at school. Language, which science depends on, is a visual art--symbols on paper. As with any visual art, the structured symbols together really convey very little, even if we agree it means something important. Pages, books, libraries, institutions, frames around frames around frames of ambiguity, approximation and interpretation.

nitrogen 11y ago
The self-reinforcing successes of mathematics and experimentation, which science depends on much more than language, would seem to escape the linguistic relativism and false sense of confidence you're trying to present (if I understand your comment correctly). In general, though, personal confidence in our personal understanding is indeed a very fuzzy thing that probably does have a lot to do with popular acceptance. Eventually neuroscience will help us understand this better. But, the scientific method and mathematics together provide a way to escape the limitations of perceived correctness now. Instead of our brains judging what's correct, we have logically independent methods (science proper and math) that can make the decisions for us.
- pjbrunet 11y ago
  Yes, as far as numbers go, there's not much ambiguity, unless it's ambiguous math on purpose, like a postulate. Which reminds me, years ago I read an entire book about zero and the evolution of numbers. I think it was http://www.amazon.com/The-Nothig-that-Is-Natural/dp/0195142373 http://www.amazon.com/The-Nothig-that-Is-Natural/dp/01951423... the part about clay tablets made an impression. If we had eight fingers, would we do octal calculations? Hehe. Anyway, thanks for the reply. For the record, I wasn't meaning to imply science is super ambiguous.

nitrogen 11y ago

The self-reinforcing successes of mathematics and experimentation, which science depends on much more than language, would seem to escape the linguistic relativism and false sense of confidence you're trying to present (if I understand your comment correctly). In general, though, personal confidence in our personal understanding is indeed a very fuzzy thing that probably does have a lot to do with popular acceptance. Eventually neuroscience will help us understand this better. But, the scientific method and mathematics together provide a way to escape the limitations of perceived correctness now. Instead of our brains judging what's correct, we have logically independent methods (science proper and math) that can make the decisions for us.

pjbrunet 11y ago
Yes, as far as numbers go, there's not much ambiguity, unless it's ambiguous math on purpose, like a postulate. Which reminds me, years ago I read an entire book about zero and the evolution of numbers. I think it was http://www.amazon.com/The-Nothig-that-Is-Natural/dp/0195142373 http://www.amazon.com/The-Nothig-that-Is-Natural/dp/01951423... the part about clay tablets made an impression. If we had eight fingers, would we do octal calculations? Hehe. Anyway, thanks for the reply. For the record, I wasn't meaning to imply science is super ambiguous.