Comments on: The language of Science http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:04:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Davis http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14544 Davis Sat, 15 Apr 2006 03:27:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14544 Recently, some fellow mathematicians and I had a similar conversation about the idea of Chinese replacing English as the language of the sciences. I was on the 'no' side -- Chinese is a tone language (with four tones), which is difficult for speakers of non-tone languages to learn. Many people have a hard time even distinguishing the tones, let alone learning to use them correctly. Add to that the difficulty of reading and writing Chinese (even some speakers I know find this nontrivial), and I doubt that we'll see Chinese take over as the lingua franca. On the other hand, perhaps Chinese and English will spawn some linguistic bastard child... Recently, some fellow mathematicians and I had a similar conversation about the idea of Chinese replacing English as the language of the sciences. I was on the ‘no’ side — Chinese is a tone language (with four tones), which is difficult for speakers of non-tone languages to learn. Many people have a hard time even distinguishing the tones, let alone learning to use them correctly. Add to that the difficulty of reading and writing Chinese (even some speakers I know find this nontrivial), and I doubt that we’ll see Chinese take over as the lingua franca.

On the other hand, perhaps Chinese and English will spawn some linguistic bastard child…

]]> By: Anon http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14543 Anon Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:00:55 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14543 > English is likely the most expressive language, if > that means anything, just because of the number of > words. There is more to expressiveness than word counts. I feel limited in English, despite having spoken it most of my life, because it simply lacks entire affective registers efficiently expressible in some other languages with particles, diminutives, etc. These would be so unnatural to reproduce in English that it is never done, as a result of which certain modalities are simply never expressed in English. > English is likely the most expressive language, if
> that means anything, just because of the number of
> words.

There is more to expressiveness than word counts.
I feel limited in English, despite having spoken it
most of my life, because it simply lacks entire
affective registers efficiently expressible in some
other languages with particles, diminutives, etc.
These would be so unnatural to reproduce in English
that it is never done, as a result of which certain
modalities are simply never expressed in English.

]]> By: Plato http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14542 Plato Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:17:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14542 <b>Alain Connes</b> <blockquote>Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics <b>are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element</b>", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition.</blockquote> ftp://ftp.alainconnes.org/maths.pdf As a layman, I understand this. Simple and direct. Yet in <b>imaging</b> if you exploded those views from the <b>math basis</b> could ambiguity creep in? Sure. That's why we need good teachers who can master both for the public at large. Good computer modellers who can match the math to visualizations Often I find that those who had done well critized, like , Smolin, Greene, and the many other fine writers, who had brought the public up to date. <b>Who You Going to Call</b>! So looking at Clifford's threesome, I might call it, Science's Ghost/Myth Busters? :) Alain Connes

Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element“, a kind of elementary particle” of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition.

ftp://ftp.alainconnes.org/maths.pdf

As a layman, I understand this. Simple and direct. Yet in imaging if you exploded those views from the math basis could ambiguity creep in? Sure.

That’s why we need good teachers who can master both for the public at large. Good computer modellers who can match the math to visualizations

Often I find that those who had done well critized, like , Smolin, Greene, and the many other fine writers, who had brought the public up to date.

Who You Going to Call!

So looking at Clifford’s threesome, I might call it, Science’s Ghost/Myth Busters? :)

]]> By: adam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14520 adam Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:41:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14520 There's a bunch of python enthusiasts in my building, although IDL is the most popular language, I would say (and sounds like FORTRAN, with extra picture goodness, to me). Just for writing general code, I actually like C#. Although writing in a language with reference types AND garbage collection still makes me a bit queasy. On the subject of English and science, I reckon that it's largely chance, too (in the sense that it's not been picked on its intrinsic merits for communicating science). Lucky for me, as I blow when it comes to learning languages, although I have some facility with science. There’s a bunch of python enthusiasts in my building, although IDL is the most popular language, I would say (and sounds like FORTRAN, with extra picture goodness, to me).

Just for writing general code, I actually like C#. Although writing in a language with reference types AND garbage collection still makes me a bit queasy.

On the subject of English and science, I reckon that it’s largely chance, too (in the sense that it’s not been picked on its intrinsic merits for communicating science). Lucky for me, as I blow when it comes to learning languages, although I have some facility with science.

]]> By: PK http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14519 PK Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:21:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14519 I say Mathematica, Fortran, and LaTeX is all a scientist needs. Oh, and a bit of HTML. I say Mathematica, Fortran, and LaTeX is all a scientist needs.
Oh, and a bit of HTML.

]]> By: karl http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14517 karl Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:13:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14517 You have to go back to less respectable types like Paracelsus (he of the iatrochemistry) to understand the urge to move from Latin to the vernacular (German, in his case) as the language of science. PK is right that Stevin's talent for scientific neologism could well have had a much greater influence -- should we blame it all on the Spanish Habsburgs mucking up the Low Countries? And Galileo certainly did a great deal to make a scientific vernacular credible in his day. I'd be inclined to lean heavily on the element of historical contingency here. The labile vocabulary or simpler grammar of English were not sufficient to displace French (earlier) or German (later). Many pre-war non-native German-speaking scientists were perfectly reasonable in regarding that language as somehow more precise in expression, and thus preferable as the language of science, if not the lingua franca. So, are there any practical advantages to adopting an ideographic language like Chinese, or are these simply demographic arguments? I suspect English will remain the language of international science even as the American empire declines. You have to go back to less respectable types like Paracelsus (he of the iatrochemistry) to understand the urge to move from Latin to the vernacular (German, in his case) as the language of science. PK is right that Stevin’s talent for scientific neologism could well have had a much greater influence — should we blame it all on the Spanish Habsburgs mucking up the Low Countries? And Galileo certainly did a great deal to make a scientific vernacular credible in his day.

I’d be inclined to lean heavily on the element of historical contingency here. The labile vocabulary or simpler grammar of English were not sufficient to displace French (earlier) or German (later). Many pre-war non-native German-speaking scientists were perfectly reasonable in regarding that language as somehow more precise in expression, and thus preferable as the language of science, if not the lingua franca.

So, are there any practical advantages to adopting an ideographic language like Chinese, or are these simply demographic arguments? I suspect English will remain the language of international science even as the American empire declines.

]]> By: chuko http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14518 chuko Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:03:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14518 The math, science, and grid libraries for python are now pretty mature, and it's much easier for a non-professional programmer (and that definitely includes most physicists...) to write good python code than C++. For numerical work, it's only slightly slower because the numerics code itself runs at the speed of compiled C, and the development time is much shorter. The math, science, and grid libraries for python are now pretty mature, and it’s much easier for a non-professional programmer (and that definitely includes most physicists…) to write good python code than C++. For numerical work, it’s only slightly slower because the numerics code itself runs at the speed of compiled C, and the development time is much shorter.

]]> By: adam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14521 adam Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:30:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14521 You people will burn in the fiery pits of hell. Not that I've ever used FORTRAN 90. It was 77 that I learnt. If I was teaching physics undergrads a language, though, I think that I'd be doing them more of a service in general to teach them c++ (or even, ick, Java). You people will burn in the fiery pits of hell.

Not that I’ve ever used FORTRAN 90. It was 77 that I learnt. If I was teaching physics undergrads a language, though, I think that I’d be doing them more of a service in general to teach them c++ (or even, ick, Java).

]]> By: collin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14541 collin Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:25:44 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14541 Adam-- there are some of us, who are in no way old, who think that FORTRAN is an immeasurably better language for physics than C++. Adam– there are some of us, who are in no way old, who think that FORTRAN is an immeasurably better language for physics than C++.

]]> By: Adam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-14540 Adam Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:21:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/10/the-language-of-science/#comment-14540 Chris, that was interesting. But they're making progress! The MS complex libraries for c++ didn't entirely work, on the version that I had (although all such irritations were eclipsed by the annoyance of dealing with the ridiculous scoping behaviour of local variables). I guess that, over time, there will be enough library stuff available for some proper mathematical programming, even if only through contributions by enthusiasts (which reminds me to check on how mono is doing). Chris, that was interesting. But they’re making progress! The MS complex libraries for c++ didn’t entirely work, on the version that I had (although all such irritations were eclipsed by the annoyance of dealing with the ridiculous scoping behaviour of local variables).

I guess that, over time, there will be enough library stuff available for some proper mathematical programming, even if only through contributions by enthusiasts (which reminds me to check on how mono is doing).

]]>