Homepage of Boris Haase




Binary Font • Font Fonto • Ambisexuality • Planned Language Lango • Language of Science  (Previous | Next)



Language of science

Language of Science

What language of science is appropriate? How are scientific results expressed, linguistically correct and future-oriented? What has to be considered in this case? These questions are to be answered in the following.

Within and outside of science applies: No appropriate text can emerge without sufficient personal maturity. Who has this will avoid (conventional) phrases as far as possible, even if their use is highly esteemed, to a large extent, or demanded. No one can upgrade a poor paper, in front of a sufficiently developed reviewer by parlance or talebearing, or present it in a significantly more favourable light.

Such behaviour is repulsive and does a disservice to science. In the future, only texts will endure that stand clearly aloof from that, since, with the exponential growth of knowledge, no one will bother to take note of the poor texts, in the light of the many good ones. Who does not want to perish thus will have to think properly, and must also give zis thoughts the right form.

The worse mistakes are the wrong, insufficient or superfluous thoughts. Who only wants to fill the pages and publish (at any price) has them surely. Who spends much time here wastes it, but often incentives, such as a title, are the stronger argument than the quality, even if only expensive linguistic garbage emerges. The number of basically worthless "papers" runs unfortunately worldwide into a few million texts.

Is it bad enough that decidedly too many superfluous and irrelevant research projects are run in science, and, even worse, financed (at the expense of the general public), since the persuasive power is stronger than the mind, which can be easily proven by the "results", so it is standing to reason to use a language that allows for as many as possible, without difficulty, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Present science is far too often characterised to roll out weak thoughts, ranting, overprecise and simple, leading to believe, with as many level-depressing quotes, a completeness (of the still insufficient), yet passing the essential, since it would otherwise flinch from its own justification, although it lost it by this, as easy reflections and back translations show.

A winning presentation is mostly sacrificed in favour of drily "scientificalness", which is accompanied by self taboos and its formalised unimaginativeness, since scientific wit wants to contrast with the "ordinary" one. If wit would actually be made obligatory, the craftsmanship science would be overchallenged, since this form of upgrading would contradict the cold neutrality that makes it such an exciting experience today.

If scientists allow themselves to rate, then preferably about the stupidity of those who published so poorly earlier, so that only the own superiority could correct this, if they want to serve with a scientifically presentable result at all, since even the smallest new tail constitutes scientific progress and dangles then conspicuously from the graduation cap or preliminary to the own name.

Equally popular is to rate in a (poorly) hidden manner, because of the self-imposed value freedom, by choosing words that (also) can be rated pejorative (and actually must be), but what the respective author is forgiven, because oneself does not think much better, or knuckles under to the "luminary", who is, as contrasted with a beginner, entitled to this, after the thorny climbing the peak of science.

If one would confront a scientist with a brief, novel and fruitful text, it could be still so ingenious and significant and ze would not accept it as such, or take note of it, if it would not meet the conventional and outdated standards, which do not reveal anything about the value of a paper, but, on the contrary, reduce it relatively. This must be avoided and made clearly conscious.

It is outrageous, which trivial things of course are transformed into unmeaning results, under the guise of science, by extensive and costly studies, empirically on the cusp of the predicable at all resp. meaningless, with scarce expressiveness and slight significance multiply "secured", and at a high price regaled as the eggs of Columbus on symposia, congresses, etc.

No subject is too absurd, as that it is not suitable for the meticulous scientific exploration and squandering generation of (hypo-) theses, since science is at best ashamed of its impatience, which the reality produces, but is actually an expression of its lack of restraint and immoderateness resp. brazenness to pretty up verbosely that what is not worth knowing, and to defend it against offences of decency.

Who dares to call the (scientific) significance of the results into question is confronted with elusive spurious arguments, which turn every X into a U, but emphasise above all the necessity for the survival of humanity, which enables the knowledge of science to preserve its power. When it comes to its existence, science cannot take a joke, just as little as with the loss of influence in society.

If the majority would trust in divine revelation and its common sense more than in the undeserved opinion leadership of science, because of the verifiability and (seeming) objectivity of scientific results, so it would quickly be on to science and start to give back the distinction to it that it deserves, by defining, better and more strictly, the standards for science for the good of all.

Who wants to experience of what science is vain needs only to follow the way it presents itself in its publications and lectures, when it demonstrates its learnedness, in off-hook terminology, and often bossy as overly didactic, in strict accordance with the scientific pecking order. It is dissected and reinterpreted in endless discussions, what already comes out of one's ears again.

In numerous animal experiments, the animals suffer for the most superfluous questions, only because science does not want to control its insatiable curiosity, or wants to prove that for what its reason is not sufficient, or where it is too comfortable for appropriate alternatives. The greed for comfort, (dubious) fame and long-lasting luxury as possible incites it more than the cognition that a happy and fulfilling life follows the divine order.

Instead of building on solid foundations, it rather erects swashbuckling theoretical buildings, which everyone with a clear mind shuns, because of its bookish inaccessibility and insufficiency. In doing so, it loses the essentials completely out of sight and knits with primitive scientific manner an inextricable ball of mental aberrations that passes by life and only gives trouble to anyone who must be concerned with it.

Quality, as well as aesthetics, suffers from the fury of publishing, and so the treatises are to read again and again as testimonials of the personality and the character of their authors, since their language and their content still disclose what the authors would prefer to conceal. Who lives agreeable to L and refined zerself intensively is not concerned with things that are unworthy for L, since ze aims at higher goals than extremely giving zerself airs.

Instead of respecting the individuality of the individual and doing justice to zer in zis uniqueness, science makes general statements about so large groups that their significance is vanishingly small. In doing so, it tries to reduce everything, if possible, to one principle and to jam the diversity into a scientific corset that satisfies its drive for simplicity. But it depends on the right amount of both.

Who develops, in the relationship with L, the greatness that comes from L knows how ze brings zer thinking, concentrated on the essentials, in the right form and spares others the mistakes that we find in science today. One may find the drawn picture in a given case exaggerated, but it shows how science basically is in our time. The way out of the grievance was shown clearly. It is always worthwhile to go it for the good of all.

© 2011 by Boris Haase


Valid XHTML 1.0 • disclaimer • mail@boris-haase.de • pdf-version • bibliography • subjects • definitions • statistics • php-code • rss-feed • top