Is the language of science sufficient?
 

I feel like I need to write a 25 page essay just to explain my question, but I'm thinking no one would read it. So let me boil it down.

In recent times, when we describe our human condition, we typically default to the language of science.

"I'm depressed", "I have osteoporosis", "I am have a bipolar disorder"

But how is this any different from saying:

"A cloud has come over me", "Age has taken her toll on me", "My mood has its seasons"

What I am getting at is the emotional emptiness of modern language. Language once relegated to the laboratory has become the common speak of the blaring pharmaceutical commercial.

When I was younger I lived in Detroit. I spent a lot of time around black folks. The dialect lower class black folks speak to each other is frequently derided by the educated. It is not the language of science. It is not the language of Plato. But is is really inferior? Is it useful to quickly transfer precise data? Frequently, No. But is is inferior in its ability to impart emotionally intelligent meaning? I don't think so.

Wittgenstein and a cup of coffee anyone?

I'm listening.

It seems that there are a lot of judgements cast on the way a person 'presents'.



KT

A very interesting point. I would suggest the precision of the speakers language in the context it is being used, is more important than the turn of phrase. Saying "I have algodistropy" explains clearly why I am walking with crutches, saying "it's my knee", would be a clearer explanation for some listeners, saying "the burden of my life and the weight of my expectations" would be more pretentious but more poetic;)

The visual image a person projects is also very important in getting a message across. Most people are very poor listeners and readers and in reality are only giving superficial attention.

Interesting topic.

I agree with this and it's not just about medicine. In general I think it reflects our society's values. We tend to assign credibility and value to rational, left-brained, "male" things and tend to downplay or devalue emotional, passionate or right-brained things. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing overall and when you think about it (rationally - haha, the irony) it really SHOULD be acceptable to simply say "I'm just getting older and I guess I'll be seeing more of the doctors" or whatever rather than giving a clinical explanation.

Consequence of a patriarchal society perhaps?

It's funny too - in my own profession (design) having any decision or gesture be arbitrary is ABSOLUTELY verboten. Taboo. Surefire way to get shredded on a review or lose a client. If someone asks for an explanation of the colors, forms, materials or whatever used in your scheme, you damn well have a good, sound, logical, rational answer ready or you're up schit creek without a paddle. Just saying "it seemed to work well with the overall composition" or "it compliments the other spaces" is completely insufficient. But the end goal (and the thing you're ultimately evaluated on in the court of public opinion) is whether or not your work is beautiful, elegant and aesthetically pleasing. Qualities which are quite difficult to quantify and describe in the language of logic and rationality.

Think of the buildings that appeal to you the most - why? Is it because they're functionally sound or because they take your breath away with their beauty? For me (and I'd argue for most) it's the latter. So perhaps it's okay to embrace such goals from the point of view of passion and emotion. It still has to work (doesn't do much good if it isn't functional or can't serve its intended purpose - it's just sculpture at that point), so there needs to be a balance, but overwhelmingly the emphasis even on art/beauty/design is the rational, rather than the emotional half of the brain.

I'd argue it's much harder to get the end result when one is only taught to use/develop/value half their mind.

What? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.


;)

No, I don't think that the language of science is always better

Language of science is perhaps not sufficient, but crucially important in order for the scientist/doctor/chemist/biologist etc to understand exactly what we are talking about. Frankly, to be a bit crude, emotional language contents are of rather low relevance in for example daily medical diagnosing and treatment. With the contact with the patient its a whole other ballgame, where relevant emotional nuances are equally important for the total outcome of the treatment, IMHO.

If I understood the question correctly, that is... maybe my limited English skills would require those 25 pages you mentioned..:D

just so Markus

are you saying it would be better to call:

protons: positive thingamabobs

electrons: sparky stuff

neutrons: you know, like that country in Europe

I suspect that what he's saying is that scientific language is necessary in science, but not as necessary in everyday conversation between ordinary folks.

Yup, that "context" thing.

Slow day today huh?