Hi, Eduardo,
Thanks for your note. Not sure if I can respond to this properly but I'll
try. I'm away from my own computer and answering via the webmail list
interface.
Two issues here seem to me require deeper reflection.
It's true that the definition of writing doesn't mention science, but that
doesn't seem relevant to this thread. One can define writing without
describing all the purposes for which one may employ writing.
Scientific inquiry doesn't require writing, but it does require
representation. Not all forms of science can be expressed in numbers,
however. Some forms of science require process descriptions in the form of
words. Other forms of science require illustrations or models in the form
of drawings. I once read an article by a Nobel Laureate in chemistry who
argued that you cannot do advanced research in chemistry without drawing.
Some kinds of scientific inquiry require several media of communication
combined.
Research and scientific work take place in the mind. We represent research
results and scientific findings in spoken words, we represent them in
written text, we represent them in numbers, and we represent them in
images. This is how we document, codify, and share research and science.
Most scientific description requires narrative of some kind, ebven in such
numerical fields as mathematics and physics. Further, it is through words
rather than numbers that we convey the meta-narratives of research that
help us to explain assumptions, limits, processes, choices, and research
decisions.
Best regards,
Ken
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:39:51 -0000, Eduardo Corte Real <eduardo.corte-
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>One thing we may start to assume is that writing is not something that
>Merriam-Webster relates to Science (since, in the meaning of writing,
>Science is never mentioned). This may seem silly but, although some
science
>is written, writing is not the medium of science. Science aims to be
>symbolized outside writing. This is to say that ultimately, science does
not
>want to express itself in the same medium as poetry or Literature.
>
>Science, Scientia, knowledge is ultimately perturbed by writing because
>writing is (willingly or not willingly) bound to be poetic, narrative, and
>not scientific. Science, in the way Philosophy of Science had define it,
>would want to make statements with mathematical formulations or models
>outside writing. Writing (further than the troglodyte meaning of making
>whatever signs and the highly sophisticated mathematical formulations)
>requires a narrative that inexorably will gather logical propositions
along
>with analogical propositions and even not logical propositions. Science
>requires only logical propositions, analogical propositions functioning as
>logical propositions and not logical propositions working as negative
>logical propositions. In the end, the scientific perfect discourse would
be
>not written but reduced to logical expressions of true or false value
>conducting to conclusions. In that sense, words would be, as seldom are,
use
>to build logical expressions and not, in fact, Written expressions.
>
>The usefulness of science (as socially certified accepted knowledge) is
not
>at stake here. The problem is that, other than pure mathematics,
knowledge,
>in order to be socially accepted as knowledge, still needs to be written
>(and no one can prohibit written knowledge to be read as narrative).
|