3 ms·

Richard Feynman had a very good quote on this topic. Effectively, knowing the name of an animal is the least useful knowledge about that animal. https://m.yout

• leni536 9y ago
  What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; From "Romeo and Juliet."
• Radim 9y ago
  If I understand correctly, Feynman implies there exist other defining properties, better than names, that are preferable when thinking about animals (or objects in general)... unless one is communicating with other people, in which case a name will do. But it's names all the way down! These substitute properties are also only names. Using articulate attention (science), we divide the world into abstract categories, giving names to classes of "things" that are in fact unique, even if the classes are fuzzy around the edges and just leaky abstractions of reality. Is thinking in terms of the swirling, teeming, interconnected mass of "stuff" that's truly at the core of Nature a useful tool for getting ahead and making progress? It seems it's just too much to grasp, with everything unique and indivisible, no categories, no repeats. Even leaky abstractions (thrush! tiger! rock! water! human!) do better. To question the utility of names is to question the utility of the power of articulate discrimination, one of evolution's critical inventions. Not sure what lies that way except inarticulate madness.
  • yoz-y 9y ago
    I do not think that he (or us here) questions the utility of names. Rather, the utility of knowing only a name and not much else. Knowing the names of a hundred mushrooms is less useful than knowing which of them you can eat.
• gerbilly 9y ago
  Well that the one place where I disagreed with Feynman after reading all of his books. The name of an animal connects you to a body of knowledge about that animal, both in books and in you elders. Also let's not get hung up on 'name' as it is in english, simply a label long disconnected from it roots. On the west coast of Canada the costal land is a very thin soil atop a layer of bedrock. Despite that some of the largest and oldest trees grew here. Do you know what the name of a tree is in the Nuu-chah-nulth language: 'land holder'. The name doesn't just label the thing, it tells you what it does, the roots hold the soil together. Cut too many of them down and the soil washes away, leaving you only with bare rock. If enough white men had known the 'true name' of west coast trees, maybe clearcutting would have never been practised.
  • cyphar 9y ago
    I agree that the etymology of words is interesting and useful, but Feynmann's point (at least the way I saw it) wasn't that names are useless. It's that knowing just the name of something doesn't tell you much about the thing. It's far more useful to know properties of said thing. You've given an example of an indigenous language being very descriptive. But there are equally many examples of them not being descriptive or being confusing. The same applies for all languages in fact (even German I would argue). Words in English have a long etymology too (and since it is far more widely spoken than most other languages, it has a far more complicated etymological history). Not to mention that all words are effectively by function labels, even in the language you mention. Just because the label has some logic behind it doesn't make it not a label. Also, is there a reason that you feel the need to deride "white men" or English? Seems quite out-of-place to me. Most invaders don't listen to the advice of indigenous inhabitants after invading a country, regardless of their skin colour.
    • gerbilly 9y ago
      I'm not deriding white men or english either, just pointing out the participants in the situation I was talking about.