The world would have been much simpler than it is if only one writing system exists. One of the most salient characteristic of human civilization is there are many writing systems, some with great variations. Tremendous efforts and time have been taken by billions of people in learning other languages and associated cultures and sciences. There is an immediate need to investigate how the variations mean to science. It is taken for granted that science can be represented in different writing systems and still being the same science. That apparently belittles and overlooks writing system, or simply bypass it altogether. Our opinion is totally different since it is considered the foundation of science.
1 writing systems build their own sciences
Even though describing same theories and experiments, science of one writing system should be considered not the same of another since stemming from different foundations, which vary with each other by exactly their visual features and manners of reading them. That represents the essential differences between their sciences. For instance, there are Korean science, Russian science.
2 textual classification of science
Conventionally, science is subdivided regarding its non-textual portion, which are the information things present to our senses. For example, a photo of a blue sky with stars relates to astronomy, while a photo of cats relates to zoology. Since the sciences of different systems are considered separate ones, it is necessary to introduce a new method of classification of science based on the types of writing system, which is a more basic level of classification of science than the branches and disciplines. E.g. In the photos of the sky and cats described by Korean or Russian, Korean and Russian sciences are more basic level divisions than astronomy and zoology. The development of non-textual portions of science are based on specific writing systems. The sky with Korean description can be called Korean astronomy.
3 translation
A scientific mind usually cannot understand science in non-textual mode. When science is written in a language they are not acquainted to, translation is needed, in mental, oral or written form. During translation, they are employing their textual mind to learn the science written in another system, aiming to approximate the explanations and incorporate non-textual portions of the source system into their own system.
Intuitively, people think that they translate to represent the same science. In fact, by translation, they are expanding their own foundation. When people read the translated work, they are actually learning a science different from the original one, even the non-textual portion is the same. People do not acquire the exact science until they learn the source texts.
Based on translations, people also develop their own work without referencing the source texts. As a result, translations can develop science of increasing variation from the original system's. The greater difference between the symbol shapes and word patterns of the source system and target system, the more variations there would be.
4 quality of science
Knowing a writing system founds its own science is important because different systems usually are not equal in the properties, particularly for those with distinct symbol shapes. The differences on the key properties of the written languages lead to differences in the key qualities of their sciences. That is to say, the quality of science is determined by the specific writing system. Theoretically, the textual foundations facilitate as well as limit the scientific progress qualitatively.
Although having writing systems as their foundations, the assessment of science is based on their effects - the inventions and discoveries and changes of the non-textual world that benefit humanity. An important aspect of our writing-centered model of science is that non-texts are built upon texts. That indicates the analysis and creation of non-texts are constrained by texts. Non-textual creations of one system might not be within the capability of another.
Conclusion
This is a consequential paper of "language - the core of science".
Science is a conceptual term. Our argument should also be applied to fields of technology, engineering and other areas deemed to be scientific. It is crucial to separate them regarding the types of writing system in this bewildering complex multilingual and scientific world.
By Charley Pein
Article Source: Writing Systems Define Their Own Sciences
1 writing systems build their own sciences
Even though describing same theories and experiments, science of one writing system should be considered not the same of another since stemming from different foundations, which vary with each other by exactly their visual features and manners of reading them. That represents the essential differences between their sciences. For instance, there are Korean science, Russian science.
2 textual classification of science
Conventionally, science is subdivided regarding its non-textual portion, which are the information things present to our senses. For example, a photo of a blue sky with stars relates to astronomy, while a photo of cats relates to zoology. Since the sciences of different systems are considered separate ones, it is necessary to introduce a new method of classification of science based on the types of writing system, which is a more basic level of classification of science than the branches and disciplines. E.g. In the photos of the sky and cats described by Korean or Russian, Korean and Russian sciences are more basic level divisions than astronomy and zoology. The development of non-textual portions of science are based on specific writing systems. The sky with Korean description can be called Korean astronomy.
3 translation
A scientific mind usually cannot understand science in non-textual mode. When science is written in a language they are not acquainted to, translation is needed, in mental, oral or written form. During translation, they are employing their textual mind to learn the science written in another system, aiming to approximate the explanations and incorporate non-textual portions of the source system into their own system.
Intuitively, people think that they translate to represent the same science. In fact, by translation, they are expanding their own foundation. When people read the translated work, they are actually learning a science different from the original one, even the non-textual portion is the same. People do not acquire the exact science until they learn the source texts.
Based on translations, people also develop their own work without referencing the source texts. As a result, translations can develop science of increasing variation from the original system's. The greater difference between the symbol shapes and word patterns of the source system and target system, the more variations there would be.
4 quality of science
Knowing a writing system founds its own science is important because different systems usually are not equal in the properties, particularly for those with distinct symbol shapes. The differences on the key properties of the written languages lead to differences in the key qualities of their sciences. That is to say, the quality of science is determined by the specific writing system. Theoretically, the textual foundations facilitate as well as limit the scientific progress qualitatively.
Although having writing systems as their foundations, the assessment of science is based on their effects - the inventions and discoveries and changes of the non-textual world that benefit humanity. An important aspect of our writing-centered model of science is that non-texts are built upon texts. That indicates the analysis and creation of non-texts are constrained by texts. Non-textual creations of one system might not be within the capability of another.
Conclusion
This is a consequential paper of "language - the core of science".
Science is a conceptual term. Our argument should also be applied to fields of technology, engineering and other areas deemed to be scientific. It is crucial to separate them regarding the types of writing system in this bewildering complex multilingual and scientific world.
By Charley Pein
Article Source: Writing Systems Define Their Own Sciences
No comments:
Post a Comment
Informations From: Dunia Aneh Blog 89