critiques of science

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
A sentence that includes the word 'hegemonic' would probably mean the same thing, but would make sense to more people, if you replaced it with 'dominant' or 'mainstream'. But there isn't an everyday alternative to words like 'haplogroup' or 'gauge transformation' because they don't describe everyday concepts.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
A sentence that includes the word 'hegemonic' would probably mean the same thing, but would make sense to more people, if you replaced it with 'dominant' or 'mainstream'. But there isn't an everyday alternative to words like 'haplogroup' or 'gauge transformation' because they don't describe everyday concepts.
I can see your point, I think, especially because science is otherwise inclined to speak in as simple and as neutral terms as possible, no? More conservative, that is.

Whereas philosophy would be more liberal, at least by the standards of science. And I suppose the hegemony/dominant point is worth making, seeing as there does seem to be some fat in the terms employed in some philosophic discourse. That said, while the use of stranger and more complicated words isn't totally justified, it isn't totally unjustified, right?

Especially if we consider philosophy to be concerned with what questions science ought to answer; what dichotomies are useful, which have grown obsolete/irrelevant. Can't say thats the only way to handle philosophy, but it can be a useful one, no?

Maybe I'm guilty of giving the benefit of the doubt, but I think that, so long as the evolution/complication of jargon doesn't just move on and on without attempting to take root in everyday terms, such jargon could be warranted. But there is something of a vortex here, would you not say? The farther you go in, the more alien the language becomes, the more you appear to have your head in the clouds?

So long as you can anchor/tether yourself to the ground, perhaps an excursion into the vortex may be fruitful.
 
Top