The Language of Science or The Science of Language
Language, both oral and written, developed out of the need to convey thought processes. It has already enabled the sharing of information not only among people living in a common era but also made possible the transfer of knowledge from one generation to another. The increasing sophistication of our society has led to the establishment of profession-specific languages. This has already aggravated a situation brought about by the presence of language barriers.
People have looked upon men of science as miracle workers. They have conjured up an image of scientists who are able to harness the forces of nature to do man’s will. After all, we are able to predict eclipses, send our robotic emissaries to the other planets and have tamed the mighty atom. The Science people must be in contact with something greater than man himself to come up with such accomplishments!
While all of the above are good for securing funds for a number of Science projects, it has also succeeded in alienating a greater portion of mankind. The Science in everyday life has receded to the background. A chasm has been created between the masses and the people involved in Science.
How has Science arrived at this point? Proponents representing various factions can come up with endless arguments but the fact remains that the isolation was done with a conscious effort. What better way to maintain an aura of invincibility than to use a distinct language that sets one apart from the common people?
Where do we go from here? Adopt the traditional way of doing Science or convert it to “Science for Dummies”? The popularity of these series of books indicate that there is a void existing between the “experts” and the greater number of people. Language has been a major factor for such alienation. Mass? Weight? If we check with the dictionary, it has the same meaning. Alas in Science, they are different.
Students and teachers should have no difficulty in communicating with one another. Even the presence of diverse groups should not hinder effective communication. However, it would be utopian to assume consistent clarity of communication could be attained in a group devoid of a common denominator.
Science should not be monolithic. Advocating a science which is more attuned to the needs of various groups is definitely preferable to the prevailing “exclusivity” of science. The predominance of this latter concept has already alienated the majority of mankind. If we have acknowledged that conserving biodiversity is essential for the survival of the planet, we must also accept that truth is absolute but it can have several versions (i.e. Is the glass half-filled with water or is it half-empty of water?). After all, open-mindedness is one of the key attributes of a true scientist.
In the same way that the path that we are traveling on had been to a large extent set forth by the generations before us, we can also direct the course of the future. As both scientists and educators, we are uniquely placed to empower the majority of mankind. The adoption of a dynamic, highly interactive and holistic science for man should start with the establishment of an effective channel of communication. Language had been used to oppress in the past, we can make language liberate the future. The use of a language, comprehensible to all, devoid of bias and tolerant of diversity would aid in paving the way for a renaissance in science.
James Sy
Essay presented to the College of Science, University of Texas at El Paso September 12 2005
People have looked upon men of science as miracle workers. They have conjured up an image of scientists who are able to harness the forces of nature to do man’s will. After all, we are able to predict eclipses, send our robotic emissaries to the other planets and have tamed the mighty atom. The Science people must be in contact with something greater than man himself to come up with such accomplishments!
While all of the above are good for securing funds for a number of Science projects, it has also succeeded in alienating a greater portion of mankind. The Science in everyday life has receded to the background. A chasm has been created between the masses and the people involved in Science.
How has Science arrived at this point? Proponents representing various factions can come up with endless arguments but the fact remains that the isolation was done with a conscious effort. What better way to maintain an aura of invincibility than to use a distinct language that sets one apart from the common people?
Where do we go from here? Adopt the traditional way of doing Science or convert it to “Science for Dummies”? The popularity of these series of books indicate that there is a void existing between the “experts” and the greater number of people. Language has been a major factor for such alienation. Mass? Weight? If we check with the dictionary, it has the same meaning. Alas in Science, they are different.
Students and teachers should have no difficulty in communicating with one another. Even the presence of diverse groups should not hinder effective communication. However, it would be utopian to assume consistent clarity of communication could be attained in a group devoid of a common denominator.
Science should not be monolithic. Advocating a science which is more attuned to the needs of various groups is definitely preferable to the prevailing “exclusivity” of science. The predominance of this latter concept has already alienated the majority of mankind. If we have acknowledged that conserving biodiversity is essential for the survival of the planet, we must also accept that truth is absolute but it can have several versions (i.e. Is the glass half-filled with water or is it half-empty of water?). After all, open-mindedness is one of the key attributes of a true scientist.
In the same way that the path that we are traveling on had been to a large extent set forth by the generations before us, we can also direct the course of the future. As both scientists and educators, we are uniquely placed to empower the majority of mankind. The adoption of a dynamic, highly interactive and holistic science for man should start with the establishment of an effective channel of communication. Language had been used to oppress in the past, we can make language liberate the future. The use of a language, comprehensible to all, devoid of bias and tolerant of diversity would aid in paving the way for a renaissance in science.
James Sy
Essay presented to the College of Science, University of Texas at El Paso September 12 2005