4 ms·

> "Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the speci

> "Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it." I really don't know about this - the divisions that humans have created in their study of science are pretty artificial, i.e. physics/chemistry/biology, and seem to have more to do with academic politics and funding opportunities than the natural world itself. Nature doesn't care about such divisions, not in the least. Mathematics is something of a special case, in that its results (and motivations) are as relevant to the world of art as they are to the world of science.

Kinrany 3y ago
Where's the contradiction?
beeneuf 3y ago
I'm having trouble understanding this comment. You seem to be grasping at one of the central points the author is raising, but you've phrased your comment as if what you've said is in opposition. Nature doesn't care about divisions, but our ways of communicating and sharing scientific knowledge are shaped by them - often to our detriment.
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  I suppose the issue is that the text could have been named 'The Structure of Academic Revolutions' which might be closer to its intent and meaning? Nevertheless the natural world, the object of scientific study, should remain the focus of attention, and the fundamental approaches - observation, experiment, theoretical construction - haven't really changed at all since the concept was invented.
analog31 3y ago
There must be some widespread realization of this problem, because "interdisciplinary" is a common buzzword in grant applications.
canjobear 3y ago
You can absolutely learn a language and say a lot about it without knowing about the “special characteristics” of people who speak/spoke it. Like, do you need to know anything about Roman culture to understand Latin grammar? No.
- Swizec 3y ago
  > do you need to know anything about Roman culture to understand Latin grammar? No. But you do need to be fluent in Roman culture to understand Latin jokes, puns, similes, metaphors, and all the other things that go into meaning. For a more modern example: Observe how British English can turn almost any noun into an insult in much the same way that this just doesn't work in American. Or how a Californian can say "this is not my favorite" and we all know they mean "this is awful". Or how Australians can use "you c*nts" as a term of endearment, but Americans cannot. Meanwhile Americans can use motherf*cker as both a term of endearment and an insult depending on situation. And who could forget the subtle difference between "You are shit" and "You are the shit". Where does that show up in grammar? edit: oh here’s a good one! The phrase “I love you” changes meaning when you say it to family, friends, coworkers, strangers, performers on stage, etc. Some languages even use different words for those meanings, but they all translate to “love” In English. You absolutely cannot understand the full meaning of language without understanding the speaker’s context.
  - canjobear 3y ago
    > But you do need to be fluent in Roman culture to understand Latin jokes, puns, similes, metaphors, and all the other things that go into meaning. You need to understand Roman culture to understand Roman jokes, but that is a property of Roman culture, not the Latin language. You could translate American jokes into Latin, and then a hypothetical American who can speak Latin but doesn't know anything about Roman culture would be able to understand and find them funny. Of course, you can't understand the full meaning of an utterance that someone utters in a particular context without understanding who that person is and what the context is. A Roman who somehow spoke perfectly grammatical English would still probably be hard for us to understand. But that's a property of an utterance, not the language itself.

Kinrany 3y ago

Where's the contradiction?

beeneuf 3y ago

I'm having trouble understanding this comment. You seem to be grasping at one of the central points the author is raising, but you've phrased your comment as if what you've said is in opposition. Nature doesn't care about divisions, but our ways of communicating and sharing scientific knowledge are shaped by them - often to our detriment.

photochemsyn 3y ago
I suppose the issue is that the text could have been named 'The Structure of Academic Revolutions' which might be closer to its intent and meaning? Nevertheless the natural world, the object of scientific study, should remain the focus of attention, and the fundamental approaches - observation, experiment, theoretical construction - haven't really changed at all since the concept was invented.

analog31 3y ago

There must be some widespread realization of this problem, because "interdisciplinary" is a common buzzword in grant applications.

canjobear 3y ago

You can absolutely learn a language and say a lot about it without knowing about the “special characteristics” of people who speak/spoke it. Like, do you need to know anything about Roman culture to understand Latin grammar? No.

Swizec 3y ago
> do you need to know anything about Roman culture to understand Latin grammar? No. But you do need to be fluent in Roman culture to understand Latin jokes, puns, similes, metaphors, and all the other things that go into meaning. For a more modern example: Observe how British English can turn almost any noun into an insult in much the same way that this just doesn't work in American. Or how a Californian can say "this is not my favorite" and we all know they mean "this is awful". Or how Australians can use "you c*nts" as a term of endearment, but Americans cannot. Meanwhile Americans can use motherf*cker as both a term of endearment and an insult depending on situation. And who could forget the subtle difference between "You are shit" and "You are the shit". Where does that show up in grammar? edit: oh here’s a good one! The phrase “I love you” changes meaning when you say it to family, friends, coworkers, strangers, performers on stage, etc. Some languages even use different words for those meanings, but they all translate to “love” In English. You absolutely cannot understand the full meaning of language without understanding the speaker’s context.
- canjobear 3y ago
  > But you do need to be fluent in Roman culture to understand Latin jokes, puns, similes, metaphors, and all the other things that go into meaning. You need to understand Roman culture to understand Roman jokes, but that is a property of Roman culture, not the Latin language. You could translate American jokes into Latin, and then a hypothetical American who can speak Latin but doesn't know anything about Roman culture would be able to understand and find them funny. Of course, you can't understand the full meaning of an utterance that someone utters in a particular context without understanding who that person is and what the context is. A Roman who somehow spoke perfectly grammatical English would still probably be hard for us to understand. But that's a property of an utterance, not the language itself.