I really like Unicode and UML and XML and many different sciences. I think they do not go far enough. It is my opinion that Chinese, Japanese and some other cultures have a more complex thought process that is shown in the expressiveness of their native languages. There is a possibility that I could devise a language for myself that encompasses all languages in a single form by being so complex that it might not be possible for some to encompass it. I find it more and more difficult to deal with the differences in perspective, terminology and assumptions of context that exist in sciences. It seems to promote confusion. It seems to be a language that is adopted by minds without the complexity to encompass too many different concepts. That may be simplistic, but it does seem to be so. Either because of lack of exposure, disinterest, lack of cultural background, hardship, or many other factors it might be very difficult to have a language that is common to all people. It is possible to have a language that is learned by those who have the opportunity and inclination to include all other sub-sets in such a way that it is possible to translate from that speech to an analogy in a less complex form.
How do you express a fact about the decay of a nuclear particle in terms that would be usable by a person who is not studied in the mechanics of that process. It would seem that it would translate as gibberish. I see this in the design of computers often. I understand electronic hardware design and software. I can be in a conversation in the computer lab and it is obvious that I am the only one who understands everything that is being said and that much of what serves as communication between the two areas is nothing more than gibberish to each of the participants. I also see the unusual interpretations of what software or hardware represents and it is sometimes comical that such talented people can be in a conversation and say things, about a science they fail to comprehend by lack of experience, that defy logic.
I have had this same experience in academia. I had a biochemistry teacher and I began a discussion about electron affinity, conduction bands, ionization potentials, vector math, network solutions, relative momentum, polarized light, and their relationships to the understanding of bond types in organic compounds. What I got was a blank stare and irritation.
I guess this same thing shows in politics, where people are influenced to trust someone, and from my perspective, it is an act of manipulation that invokes that trust and thus is no trust at all. If all participants in selection were capable of understanding the methods applied, it would result in a different outcome. It seems that the concept of informed electorate is a thing of the past and it is now the time of the controlled electorate. The sad thing about much of this speculation is that without a willingness to understand and a continuous effort applied, the information falls on deaf ears. My joke stands: "If a person falls in the forest, and no tree hears, does it really happen?"
0 comments:
Post a Comment