Search

Philosophers have traditionally decried vagueness as an unmitigated evil, and natural scientists have consistently agreed with them. Nevertheless, as I hope to show, the vagueness of scientific terms has some important advantages for the theories in which these terms figure. In so arguing I do not mean to put the best face on some unpleasant facts or to make a virtue out of a necessity. I shall begin, however, by arguing that on some contemporary accounts of scientific language the vagueness of many scientific terms is unavoidable; if it is unavoidable then lamenting it is futile, and justifying it is idle. I shall go on to argue that, independent of these accounts, the advantages of exactness attained can sometimes be substantially outweighed by the disadvantages of vagueness foregone.

The vocabulary of terms used in information processing that has been prepared under the joint auspices of the International Federation for Information Processing and the International Computation Centre and which is about to be published has been described in the paper by Gould & Tootill (1965)f. The British contribution to this work was made through the glossary committee of The British Computer Society; the committee also took a major part of the responsibility for editing. As the work progressed it was realized that the lack of an up-to-date index, which could readily be modified as changes were incorporated, was holding up the work. It was not easy to follow the cross references and ensure compatibility, and even harder to check that the definitions did not form loops. An example of the latter is that it is too easy to define PROGRAM in terms of INSTRUCTIONS and INSTRUCTION in terms of PROGRAM. Since this was a data-processing committee it was clear that dataprocessing techniques should be used to overcome these difficulties. The program and computer used had to be such that the programming would not be difficult, the amount of labour required should be reasonable and the work had to be done on a computer readily available to at least one member of the committee. These restrictions arise from the fact that the committee was staffed by voluntary labour, as is the usual case with B.C.S. committees. The programs were successfully written for a scientific computer, Mercury, in a scientific language with little difficulty, and ran successfully. It was particularly interesting to find that techniques that would normally be considered to belong to the commercial field were readily programmed in a scientific language and successful object programs obtained in two or three weeks of spare-time work.

As science and scholarship are often not clearly differentiated, so scientific writing is frequently not adecuately distinguished from the writing of essays or speeches. In the interest of candidates for the M.A. and the Ph.D. degrees some standards for scientific writing are set forth. These are clarity and the avoidance of distortion. A few observations are also made on how to attain readability, thought this quality is unimportant for science, while at the same time maintaining the necessary standards of scientific language.

Recently a number of philosophers (e.g. Feyerabend and Kuhn) have maintained that the meanings of terms in a scientific language are “theory-laden” or determined by the theory in which they occur, and thus that if the same term (e.g.; ‘mass’) occurs in different theories, it will take on different meanings in the different theories; so the theories are incommensurable. An often-stated corollary to this doctrine is the claim that possessors of different theories cannot express or possess the same facts since they attach different meanings to the terms used to give expression to the facts. Various attacks against this extreme doctrine on the relativity of facts have been mounted. Some of them consist in showing defective the argument advanced in support of this doctrine; but such criticisms at best show that the defenses offered for the doctrine are defective, not that the doctrine itself is defective.

This study attempts to prove that Old Ottoman language of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries was a scientific language in terms of its features of vocabulary and expressions, and verbs and phrases in Uyghur language and Old Ottoman language are compared.

What is the “unity of physics” and how far can it be accomplished? Before considering these questions let us look at a wider problem—the unification of all the sciences. This is itself a special case of an even wider question, the unification of all human knowledge, which I cannot dwell on here. The term “unification of the sciences” usually refers to a unification of the results obtained in the sciences; the problem of coordinating the scattered and immense body of specialized findings into a systematic whole is a real one and cannot be neglected. It includes a comparison of the methods and results of cosmology, geology, physics, biology, behavioral science, history and the social sciences in different ages. But first of all it implies a unification of scientific language. Some difficulties in science, even within a specialized discipline, arise because one cannot be sure whether two scientists speak about the same or different problems or whether they state the same or different opinions in their differ...

HE coordination of both logical syntax and * methodological analysis of scientific language by scientific empiricism (logical positivism) has achieved a twofold result: (.) ' I. Elimination of philosophical pseudo-problems and purification of the empirical sciences from the biases engendered in them by these problems. 2. Creation of an instrument apt for exact formulation, location, and analysis of the real meaning of the valid philosophical issues. While in the earlier phases of the logico-positivistic movement the first of these two major achievements has been particularly hailed by its students and likewise resented by its opponents, emphasis now has shifted towards the second. Language analysis shows that

(I) Whenever we speak with someone in everyday life, when we write a letter or read a novel, we are said to use natural language. We have a historically given language like English or French; we consider familiar things and events; and we use the language more or less as most members of the same community use it.

The only way to answer this question is to set the stage for an experiment and then accept the outcome, whether it is to your liking or not. Talk is of no use. Telling what fine English work your Latin classes do is of no use. They are naturally good or they wouldn't dare study Latin. Or, in more scientific language, Latin students are a highly selected group. How highly, I had no idea until I had actually tried to match them. The writer is a teacher of Latin; but tired of hearing that his pupils might better be studying how to sell ribbons or to drive automobiles, he gave these pupils the Terman Mental Ability Test. He also gave the same test to a number of others, wholly ignorant of Latin; and by choosing and sifting he secured two equivalent groups. In the beginning, wishing to get groups as nearly equivalent as possible before applying the intelligence test, the writer picked fifty non-Latin pupils (taking the names alphabetically from the office files) whose records in all subjects matched approximately the records of fifty of the Latin pupils. These pupils had all been in school an average of two and one-half years and had had the same amount of modern language as the Latin group. Their grades in all studies were in the aggregate almost identical with those of the Latin group. Thus they gave promise of being of approximately equal intelligence. The Latin pupils excelled those of the other group an average of 27.3 units in terms of Terman scores. This is an average superiority of i6.6 per cent. Obviously

Scientific English is found to be to a certain extent an international professional terminology in a framework which grammatically and stylistically is not always standard English. This language is becoming more and more the internationally accepted language for scientific intercommunication.

Experimentation and observation, mathematical correlation of observable data, engineering design, and physical theory, are today interwoven in many ways in modern engineering education. Particularly, modern engineering curriculum encourages a thorough investiagation into the fundamentals of physical theory. For a successful inquiry into the intricacies of classical and modem physical theory, the engineering student must develop an affinity for the correct attitudes, techniques, and scientific language used by the theorists. In its broad, deep, and diverse inquiry, physical theory uses methods and techniques which often run contrary to common sense. In this paper we have attempted to bring about some of the most fundamental attitudes in modem physical theory in its language and in the use of analogies.

he notion of linguistic adequacy (the adequacy of sentences to express or describe) is explicated in terms of a set theoretical model of the communication situation. Roughly: a message is adequate to the degree it answers the receiver's questions. Adequacy is distinguished from openness, in such a way that a message can be both completely adequate in a communication event and also “inexhaustibly open”;. Using this explication it is possible to translate and clarify several familiar philosophical theses concerning the adequacy of language. The view that “humanistic”; language differs from scientific language is clarified and criticized. Seven types of empirical test of the explication are discussed.

Chicago, Dec. 21, 1895. To the Editor: —I have read with great interest your address on "The International Scientific Language" in theJournalof this date. The position taken with regard to French seems to be good although as a matter of fact, Spanish is an easier language even than French, and is now used by a greater number of people than any other language excepting English. Would it not be well, as a means of familiarizing the profession at large, in this country, with one of these languages, to have a page or two of the contents of theJournal, each week in the proposed International language? Very truly yours

One of the crucial decisions in organizing a first course in computer science is the choice of a programming language. Although there is considerable variance of opinion as to what the ideal language should be, two main approaches can be delineated. The first approach stresses the necessity of learning the dominant scientific language, which in the Americas amounts to a vote for Fortran (2). The practicality of this choice is as indisputable as the awkwardness of the syntax of that language. The alternative view stresses the importance of the program structure in developing a sound sense of “algorithmic thinking”. Proponents of this view would suggest Algol W (4) or perhaps Pascal (5). We contend that both approaches have important advantages. This paper explores an approach which attempts to maximize the benefits of both.

Once it was the custom to speak of metaphysics as a system. and much was said about the nature and structure of systems The years have brought it about that we now speak of language — but the basic notion still remains: metaphysics must be systematic and if it takes the form of a language it will be, of course. After all that has been said in the preceding chapters, it would appear that we ought first to present a series of data and then try to systematize them; or to put the matter in linguistic terminology, to construct a language which will express the data and enable us to do certain other things. But there are a number of matters that need to be considered in order to throw light upon our problem. There is, of course, the problem of the method of obtaining the data, and also that of verification of statements. There is the problem of stating the basic terms and propositions and that of the relation between basic and derived propositions. A consideration of the structure of a language may help us in deciding where our problems lie and how to go about dealing with them.

In comparing Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason as a Logic of Science with the modern ‘Logic of Science’ one might find the profoundest point of difference between them in the fact that one is an analysis of ‘consciousness’, the other an analysis of ‘language’.

Chicago, Dec. 23, 1895. To the Editor: —I was very much pleased with your article in the last number of theJournalon "The International Scientific Language," and I think that in the main I agree with you. But I feel sure that you did not lay sufficient stress upon the unfortunate fact that the ability to speak French is quite a different thing from the translating knowledge. The former is rarely acquired after a certain age and almost never outside of a French school or a French-speaking locality. For instance, the only French that I heard spoken by Americans at the Pan-American Medical Congress—with one or two notable exceptions—was of that variety which Chaucer designated as of " Stratford-atte-Bow," and it was excessively painful to listen to. When the time comes that a man will commence to prepare himself for the study and practice of medicine at 12 years of

In the modern methodology of the empirical sciences the prevailing thesis with regard to the position and function of theoretical models in scientific research seems to be that proposed by, amongst others, Carnap, Hempel, Nagel and Braithwaite. 1 For the economist it is not completely convincing, either from a positive or a normative point of view, and it will therefore have to be modified. I t is convenient, however, to take it as a starting point since the analysis on which it is based (of the nature of the terms used in scientific language, and of the structure of deductive systems) constitutes a frame of reference which is common to nearly all the more recent discussions, including those contributions (e.g. Economics as a Science by Papandreou 2) dealing more closely with problems of economics. Since the empirical sciences aim not at descriptions of particular events but at the discovery of general principles that permit them to be explained and predicted, the common language is inadequate-lacking in pre

This paper deals in a general fashion with some of the common errors in terminology and suggests ways in which these might be rectified. Special mention is made of the meaning of terms; of the distinction between words, things and concepts; of the types of definitions; and the aims of scientific language. It concludes with a plea that terminology be considered on a par with other specialties and hence an area for post-graduate studies.

ملخص البحث:يتنازع اللغة العلميّة العربية في العصر الحديث مسألتان كبيرتان، هما: التعريب والتأليف، إذ يدفع كلٌّ منهما بها نحو النضوج والتطور من أجل الوفاء بمتطلبات العلوم الحديثة. وقد هدف البحث إلى بيان طبيعة العلاقة الجدلية بينهما في صياغتهما للغة العلم، ودورهما في تطوير أدوات اللغة واستيعاب المضامين العلمية ومصطلحاتها، ونشر الكتاب العلمي العربي. توصلت الدراسة إلى بعض النتائج، ومنها: أن لغة العلم لا تطلب مستوى من الأداء اللغوي شبيها بالمستوى الأدبي الذي استحوذ على اهتمام أهل العربية وفقهائها في التراث العربي، أدخل في وهم الكثيرين أن العربية لا تُحسِن إلا هذا الأسلوب ولا يحسُن فيها إلا إياه، وأن لغة العلم ليست كلها مصطلحات، وأنّ ما يزيد على (88%) من كلمات النصوص العلمية هي من الثروة اللفظية التي يشترك فيها أغلب المتعلمين، وأن العربية تمتلك كثيراً من المصطلحات قامت بوضعها المجامع والمؤسسات العلمية والأساتذة، وأنّ اللغة العلمية والعلماء قد أسهموا في وضع المصطلح العلمي واستخدامه وشيوعه ونشره، وأن التعريب والتأليف في العلم قد أسهما في صناعة لغة للعلم في العصر الحديث، ولا يمكن أن نستغني عن أيٍّ منهما في صياغة الأسلوب العلميّ إذا أردنا أن نجعل العربية لغة للعلم.الكلمات المفتاحية: اللغة- العلمية- التعريب- التأليف- المصطلح.Abstract:Arabic scientific language in this modern era finds itself between two major problems: Arabicization and writing, of which each of them will bring Arabic towards maturity and progress to keep up with the requirement of the modern sciences. This study aims to clarify the nature of the dialectical relationship between the two concerning its structuring of the general language; the roles of both in developing language tools and discerning scientific terms and its contents; and the publication of scientific book in Arabic. The study arrived at a number of conclusions, among others: scientific language does not require the level of performance similar to that of the literary level that has been the concern of Arabic language scholars in Arabic tradition. As the result of this, many assumed that Arabic is only suitable for this kind of style and it is of no good except with it. Scientific language is not exclusively consisted of terminologies; more than 88% of the words in scientific texts are commonplace words shared by the majority of learners. Arabic also has many terms that were coined by language academies, scientific institutions and scholars. Scientists and scientific texts had contributed as well in using and spreading the scientific terms. Both Arabicization and writing in science had indeed contributed to develop the scientific language of Arabic in modern time. We cannot simply leave any one of them in structuring the scientific language style if we want to make Arabic a scientific language.Keywords: Language– Scientific– Arabicization– Writing– Terminology.Abstrak:Bahasa saintifik dalam era moden kini, dilihat mempunyai pertembungan yang melibatkan dua elemen besar iaitu: ‘kearaban’ (mempunyai pengaruh Arab) dan penulisan. Kedua-duanya merupakan faktor yang mengangkat kematangan dan pengembangan bahasa Arab supaya seiring dengan keperluan ilmu sains moden. Objektif kajian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan hubungan dialektik antara kedua-dua isu tersebut dengan tumpuan diberikan kepada peranan yang dimainkan oleh kedua-duanya sebagai bahasa saintifik, pengembangan struktur bahasa, kefahaman mengenai istilah-istilah sains dan kandungannya serta penerbitan buku saintifik dalam bahasa Arab. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa bahasa saintifik tidak memerlukan tahap penggunaan yang tinggi seperti bahasa sastera yang telah mendapat perhatian cendekiawan Arab pada masa lampau. Hal ini menyebabkan ramai orang menganggap bahawa penggunaan bahasa Arab hanya terhad kepada gaya bahasa yang tinggi dan bukan selainnya. Selain itu, kajian juga mendapati bukan semua bahasa saintifik mempunyai istilah-istilah khusus, malah 88% perkataan yang terdapat dalam teks saintifik merupakan perkataan yang mana pada kebiasaannya digunakan oleh sebahagian besar penuntut ilmu. Hal sedemikian menyebabkan istilah-istilah saintifik dalam bahasa Arab telah dihasilkan oleh akademi-akademi, institusi-institusi saintifik dan para sarjana, yang mana kemudiannya istilah-istilah ini telah disebarluaskan oleh para saintis sebagai mana yang digunakan dalam teks saintifik. Kajian juga mendapati kedua-dua elemen, iaitu ‘kearaban’ (mempunyai pengaruh Arab) dan penulisan dalam bidang sains telah memberi sumbangan yang besar dalam menghasilkan istilah-istilah saintifik dalam bahasa Arab pada masa kini. Oleh yang demikian, kita tidak boleh membiarkan salah satu daripada keduanya dalam usaha mengistilahkan bahasa saintifik sekiranya kita mahu menjadikan bahasa Arab sebagai bahasa saintifik.Kata kunci: Bahasa- Saintifik- Pengaruh Arab- Penulisan- Istilah.

SCIENTIFIC philosophy may be in a state of flux in its details, but there is one guiding principle which seems to give at least a unity of purpose to the numerous schools of thought which have made logic their chief interest. This principle requires that the reconstruction of our knowledge should be made on the basis of experience alone, free from anthropomorphic additions, and by means of a unified scientific language shaped out of logical syntax. Let it be said at once that few thinkers would dispute the fundamental importance of this principle, provided that it is interpreted in a liberal spirit. It seems, however, that the more vocal logicians of to-day deliberately restrict experience to sense-data alone, thus leaving out those no less important aspects of experience which refer to moral, aesthetic, mystical and religious values. Without arguing the point as to whether it is possible or not to achieve a complete synthesis of our knowledge with these initial restrictions on the meaning and acception of experience, it can be admitted that this narrow interpretation of the guiding principle of scientific philosophy has aroused the enthusiasm of all those important thinkers who have adopted Russell's motto that logic is the great liberator of the mind. The Paris Congress of Scientific Philosophy is the first result of their intellectual crusade, though some of its meetings were tempered by the presence of more traditional thinkers. Actes du Congres International de Philosophie scientifique, Sorbonne, Paris, 1935 1: Philosophie scientifique et empirisme logique. Pp. 81. 12 francs. 2: Unite de la science. Pp. 77. 12 francs. 3: Langage et pseudo-problemes. Pp. 60. 10 francs. 4: Induction et probabilite. Pp. 65. 10 francs. 5: Logique et experience. Pp. 80. 12 francs. 6: Philosophie des mathematiques. Pp. 85. 12 francs. 7: Logique. Pp. 73. 10 francs. 8: Histotre de la logique et de la philosophic scientifique. Pp. 92. 12 francs. (Actualites scientifiques et industrielles, 388–395.) (Paris: Hermann et Cie., 1936.)

The less expected the message, the more it tells us, or might if we would believe what asks us to change, challenging our self-esteem. Hence perhaps the resentment of Jeffers' poems, which say we need to see the world beyond ourselves to escape our delusions of importance and the misery and violence they cause. We may claim unwelcome messages make no sense. Yvor Winters did, in saying Jeffers' pantheism, and use of violence and the language of science leave his poems no coherent plots or metaphors, and his characters no moral choices or meaning.1 But why should seeing the world as God, or writing tragedies, or using scientific language or discoveries have such an effect? Winters offered no evidence, beyond suggesting that only those who believe whatever Winters did could write coherently, or make or describe moral choices. He seemed to think that if we understand the world by seeing what causes have which results, and thus make our choices pragmatically rather than dogmatically, we cannot choose, as if our morality and freedom increase with ignorance.

This rather bulky and expensive paperback book is a compilation of 103 papers given at the Fourth European Conference on Microcirculation held in Cambridge, England, June 26, to July 2, 1966. Although it is entitled "European," it is truly international. Papers originated from all over the world, from Moscow to Sydney. Thirty-four papers came from the United States. Almost all (two exceptions) are in English, certainly the international scientific language. Most are well-illustrated by charts, photomicrographs, etc. The papers include subjects such as pharmocological effects, clotting, and emboli in the microcirculation, capillary flow, antigen—antibody reaction, toxic agents, microcirculation of specific organs and regions, effects of dextran, enervation, the microcirculation of transplanted organs, capillary permeability, and others. Most of the work was on animals; some was done on human subjects. This book is a fine summary of the state of the art in the area of the microcirculation. Although the price

Dr. Henry Eyring, in his ACS Presidential Address in New York, suggested that concentration on a single tongue in science should be encouraged in every way possible. Noting that even the ablest scientist is hard put to keep abreast of the developments even in his narrow specialty, Dr. Eyring said that the Babel of tongues in which science is being published adds to the general confusion. A scientist could possibly read science in a dozen languages, he observed, but because more scientific information is published in English than in any other language, the scientists of the western world have in large measure adopted "imperfect English" as the language of science. Dr. Henry Eyring, in his ACS Presidential Address in New York, suggested that concentration on a single tongue in science should be encouraged in every way possible. Noting that even the ablest scientist is hard put to keep abreast of the developments even in his ...

Because of awakened realization of its simplicity and rationality, the du Boys concept of the action of tractive force of the current in moving bed-material (or geschiebe) in an open channel is coming into extensive use in both laboratory and field-studies of practical river hydraulics. The du Boys equation, T = Υ DS (P. du Boys, Le Rhone et les Rivieres a Lit affouillable, Annales des Ponts et Chaussees, 1879, II), expresses the dragging, entraining, or tractive force T exerted at its base by a prism of water of unit cross-sectional area and height D sliding under the influence of gravity down an inclined plane having a slope S; or in more scientific language, it expresses the unit shearing-force in a wide channel of depth D at zero distance above the bottom.

Last month we were talking of words in general and of medical and scientific language in particular. Words, we said, were in a very real sense living symbols of the long pilgrimage of our race. Precise and literate language in medicine was essential to the integrity and stature of the profession. The exercise of judgment and care in this matter remains the mark of a civilized man. Doubtless it was all a bit pedantic, but if I am to be hanged for it, I must protest that I am being hanged in a good cause. There are other aspects of this business of language that I might have dealt with as well. For one thing, the thriving science of semantics bristling with problems, with which the name of Korzybski is linked; the modern philosophy of logical positivism, its theme "Philosophy is a critique of language," and its chief exponent Wittgenstein.

Detroit, Mich., Oct. 25, 1893. To the Editor: —The scientific language used in the argument by Dr. Solomon Solis-Cohen against Dr. John B. Roberts and his article, "The Similarity between Physicians and Homeopaths," is worthy of remark. His article is illiberal, un-American, and based upon an unscientific principle of thought. A principle of science that has been accepted by all civilization is true; but a principle of science which has not reached its perfection and its acceptance by the whole civilized world is not true, as yet. The paper, as a whole, was more suitable for a political gathering than a scientific society. No matter what ideas a man may have, he is never to be compared to a mule or a jackass. It is ungentlemanly to speak thus of a class of excellent men who are entitled to the respect of those who can not agree with them.