What is the most suitable language for scientific research?

Is it a valid assumption that a single language be it English, French, German, Chinese, can become the common working and communication platform for scientific research?
Do various sciences have language affinities to the point of native self expression?
Has scientific research been politicized and commercialized just because of being done and conveyed in English?
Is the current scientific creativity impasse an undesirable consequence of mere language?

Today a friend of mine (academic at X Univesity) posted an article: The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists (_http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process). As it was a student board perhaps it was meant to incentivize the process, however for me it went straight elsewhere, highlighting the stark difference between Science and Scientia. (Scientia et laborum is the University X motto).
Starting to read I came across an opening citation:
"Science, I had come to learn, is as political, competitive, and fierce a career as you can find, full of the temptation to find easy paths." — Paul Kalanithi, neurosurgeon and writer (1977–2015)

Perhaps a neurosurgeon is a scientist. If it is so what is the difference between a mathematician, a geophysicist and a neurosurgeon?

Help? :)

Science OUGHT to have a universal language for purposes of COMMUNICATION and all that entails.

Additionally, ALL people everywhere should be trained in that universal language - as a second language - for the same reason. It is the Tower of Babel principle that keeps humans enslaved and distant from one another. It also allows totalitarian governments to restrict knowledge their populations have access to.

Laura said:

Science OUGHT to have a universal language for purposes of COMMUNICATION and all that entails.

Additionally, ALL people everywhere should be trained in that universal language - as a second language - for the same reason. It is the Tower of Babel principle that keeps humans enslaved and distant from one another. It also allows totalitarian governments to restrict knowledge their populations have access to.

Click to expand...

Perhaps instead of: "Science OUGHT to have a universal language for purposes of COMMUNICATION and all that entails."

We should say: "Science OUGHT to have a Universal Education System for purposes of COMMUNICATION and all that entails."

The one that comes to my mind is the duo: The Trivium + The Quadrivium

They seems to level the playing field in a universal way.

So my point is Good Education first [Good Critical Thinking], new languages and abstractions layers later...

Laura said:

Science OUGHT to have a universal language for purposes of COMMUNICATION and all that entails.

Additionally, ALL people everywhere should be trained in that universal language - as a second language - for the same reason. It is the Tower of Babel principle that keeps humans enslaved and distant from one another. It also allows totalitarian governments to restrict knowledge their populations have access to.

Click to expand...

I would only add, that scientific facts should be equally "factual", no matter wiat language they are described in. So I don't think changing science language would increase it's quality or solve it's problems.

mariowil7 said:

Perhaps instead of: "Science OUGHT to have a universal language for purposes of COMMUNICATION and all that entails."

We should say: "Science OUGHT to have a Universal Education System for purposes of COMMUNICATION and all that entails."

Click to expand...

Whatever else, the second language should be taught from the earliest ages because that is when language systems of the brain are most plastic and can pick it up faster and easier. And then, of course, with the second language come additional brain skills AND the ability to figure out - via communication - whether or not the education system is adequate.

So, sorry, the second language has to come first.

Janek said:

Laura said:

Science OUGHT to have a universal language for purposes of COMMUNICATION and all that entails.

Additionally, ALL people everywhere should be trained in that universal language - as a second language - for the same reason. It is the Tower of Babel principle that keeps humans enslaved and distant from one another. It also allows totalitarian governments to restrict knowledge their populations have access to.

Click to expand...

I would only add, that scientific facts should be equally "factual", no matter wiat language they are described in. So I don't think changing science language would increase it's quality or solve it's problems.

Click to expand...

Nobody is talking about "changing science language" except that there needs to be a universal one. How can you know whether the scientific facts are "equally factual" if you can't check and compare what is coming out of the science of other places?

Believe me, I face into this problem every day - and have done for years - and language is the key.

I don't know that i'm understanding correctly but the language in science is mostly latin and greek aren't they?

An example here:

Amorphophallus titanum (from Ancient Greek amorphos, "without form, misshapen" + phallos, "phallus", and titan, "giant"), known as the titan arum, is a flowering plant with the largest unbranched inflorescence in the world. The titan arum's inflorescence is not as large as that of the talipot palm, Corypha umbraculifera, but the inflorescence of the talipot palm is branched rather than unbranched.

Click to expand...

Another example is Triangle:

triangle (n.)
late 14c., from Old French triangle (13c.), from Latin triangulum "triangle," noun use of neuter of adjective triangulus "three-cornered, having three angles," from tri- "three" (see tri-) + angulus "corner, angle" (see angle (n.)).

Click to expand...

Or Iodine means purple, because its gas color is purple.

It seems is based on the most pronounced or characteristic features of an object and not based on a universal feature that conects the word to the concept.

I think in math the conceps are more universal than anything, because how else can you call a triangle but triangle. In plants the just picked the most obvious features to describe it, like corpse plant, when in reality is not a plant blooming a corpse from inside it just smells like what we and flies perceive as such, or they don't call it "plat that blooms 3 times in a lifetime".
The descriptions are based on some characteristics that makes it unique.

My two cents

I am not understanding your questions very clearly, but I will try to answer them a bit, for what it's worth:

Ina said:

Is it a valid assumption that a single language be it English, French, German, Chinese, can become the common working and communication platform for scientific research?

Click to expand...

I think so, yes. In fact, I think English is the best suited for that, and has become that to a great extent. It can be used in concise and precise ways, and understood quite well even without a "native-level" mastery. No complex grammar, a rich vocabulary (including many words borrowed from other languages), a flexibility allowing for neologisms and expansion, no complicated tenses, no genders for nouns and adjectives, etc.

Others could apply too for other reasons, but they usually require more learning time for non-native speakers. AND, the prominent language is usually the language of the culture that predominates (Anglo-Saxon in our modern world); that's just what happens (sometimes for good, sometimes for bad, but it's a fact that people want to speak the language that is seen as the most profitable, "fashionable", "knowledgeable", etc.)

Do various sciences have language affinities to the point of native self expression?

Click to expand...

Could you reword this question? I don't understand what you mean.

Has scientific research been politicized and commercialized just because of being done and conveyed in English?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Scientific research has been politicized and commercialized mostly due to how big corporations control it a lot of the time. It happens that in this time in History, those corporations are for the most part a part of the American government. But English is not the cause. If Japan was the world leader, and was doing to the world what the US has been doing, you can be pretty sure that scientific research (or anything else) spread widely would be done in Japanese for the most part. As long as we have people in power with no conscience, they'll use the language they have to manipulate. BUT, usually because of their lack of imagination and their wishful thinking, they can shoot themselves in the foot too (English also happens to be the most propagated language for independent researchers who are NOT into "politicizing and commercializing" their work. They do serious work. Journalists, scientists, teachers, you name it. And the Internet helps us get to know about them and their work, and do some REAL science.)

Is the current scientific creativity impasse an undesirable consequence of mere language?

Click to expand...

I don't think so, although, to a certain extent, language does color the way we think and see the world. There are things that are not well expressed in English, for sure, just as there are many others not well expressed in other languages but perfectly well in English. I think the lack of creativity has nothing to do with the main language being used, but with how it has been stifled by our education system, by psychopaths (who lack creativity and want to make everyone stop thinking creatively too), wounding, programming, brain-washing, etc.

Just because a word, say, doesn't exist in English, it doesn't mean that you cannot IMAGINE the concept, or describe it in several words in English. There are many examples of so-called untranslatable words that come to mind (hygge in Danish, vergüenza ajena in Spanish, etc.) No single or two-word term can be used to translate those into English precisely, but a person can very well express the same meaning in a more complex sentence nonetheless.

The same applies to science. In fact, it's even easier there, because the subject being studied is, in most cases, observable and the terms often similar. Facts are facts, data is data. So, the language that is used to describe them is almost irrelevant as long as the truth behind the phenomenon being observed is preserved (THAT is what is often corrupted, distorted, twisted, etc., no matter the language!). But for that to be checked, ideally you have to have a common language to understand what others are saying and studying!

On the other hand, many people are potentially creative, smart and rigorous in their scientific work, but when they don't speak English, they become LESS useful to society at large. They are unable to complement their studies with a whole world of research done in English, they think they have the whole banana when someone else discovered the same thing 10 years ago, etc. (Yes, it does go both ways, but less so because there is usually more material in English than in other languages, at least for modern science). So, creativity can also be stifled by the LACK of English knowledge.

I see this almost every day, because I'm lucky to be fluent in three languages (Spanish being my mother tongue), and understand several others okay. Whenever I study something, I always look for at least what is being said on the topic in Spanish and French after reading what's available in English. Well, 98% of the time, I find myself reading translated works from English, or something that has already been said in English, or something that lacks a whole lot of data because the researcher in question doesn't know English! Once in a while, you find a great researcher who only publishes his or her works in their language (NOT English). But guess what? 99% of those times, they cite English sources, so you know they are able to open up and understand what is done out there! THEN, they make excellent analyses, they are creative, etc.

Perhaps a neurosurgeon is a scientist. If it is so what is the difference between a mathematician, a geophysicist and a neurosurgeon?

Click to expand...

The objects/subjects they study, but you probably knew that already, so I don't understand your question.

If I could have a say in world-wide education (unlikely!), then I would promote the study of at least 4 languages from birth. There are many advantages to that (but it would be a bit off topic here). BUT, one of those 4 should be learned by everyone, native or not, and be used for science and much more, whenever it can be used and applied to the world at large. so that there is no Babel Tower, and no information is hidden for those who want to find it. So that people, instead of dealing with unnecessary linguistic miscommunication, could focus on learning about each other, caring for each other, and understanding universal truths. That's too much to ask given the current state of our world, but...

My 2 cents.

Felipe4 said:

I don't know that i'm understanding correctly but the language in science is mostly latin and greek aren't they?

Click to expand...

No. Science is done mostly in English. Those scientists who don't publish in English don't get read except within their own narrow academic community.

Chu said:

The same applies to science. In fact, it's even easier there, because the subject being studied is, in most cases, observable and the terms often similar. Facts are facts, data is data. So, the language that is used to describe them is almost irrelevant as long as the truth behind the phenomenon being observed is preserved (THAT is what is often corrupted, distorted, twisted, etc., no matter the language!). But for that to be checked, ideally you have to have a common language to understand what others are saying and studying!

Click to expand...

And this is actually why English is the better language for science, particularly. As Chu pointed out, it is extremely flexible, is happy to borrow or make up new words when needed. And those words, being made up for a specific scientific purpose then become VERY exact.

There are many cool words in other languages that express an idea in a single term that need several words in English, but English is happy to borrow them and put them to work. German, for example, has contributed a lot of words to historical studies (not exactly science, but you get my point). French, too. The English speaking researchers just merrily toss them in there and everybody knows what they mean MAINLY because they are in an English context.

There are a number of scientists known to Ark who are very, very, VERY bright but their work is not known because they only speak Russian, or German or French or Polish or Italian. Ark is able to read their work so he knows, and much of it is math anyway; but these individuals are deprived of their due, and the rest of the world is deprived of their work. Here's a quote from a paper Ark just showed me that he was reading today:

In 1937, Myron Mathisson published a paper in German in the Polish journal Acta Physica Polonica with the ambitious title, in translation, of A New Mechanics of Material Systems. Long neglected, this paper was finally made available in English translation in 2010. ....

Click to expand...

That is to say, for 73 years, very few scientists knew about this work. That's tragic.

It comes to my mind to relate this about having a universal language with the forum. Many of us come from different places and speak different languages but we are using English as a common language to communicate. English is our universal language here and also worldwide, you can go anywhere and there will be someone that speaks English, specially in tourist places.

I would like to add this: what seems to me to be "wrong" with science is that many scientists do NOT speak and write in English and there is a reason for this: many non-English countries do not encourage the learning of English and are, in fact, rather chauvinistic about their own language and culture. Their governments place restrictions on language classes and the use of words from other languages in the alleged interest of "preserving our culture". What that really means is: we can control you better if you do not know what is going on elsewhere and cannot compare your own culture to another. Plus, they can better control sharing of data by restricting the learning of a universal language so the masses can't figure out what's going on.

Has scientific research been politicized and commercialized just because of being done and conveyed in English?

Click to expand...

Today, numerous papers are still published in other languages than English, however this research also suffers from politization and corruption. Therefore, I don't think that the use of English is the main causal problem.

Similarly the corruption of science happened way before the 'englishification' of science (See the Pasteur usurpation for example)

Is the current scientific creativity impasse an undesirable consequence of mere language?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the problem seems way deeper than that. Academics, through the diffusion of their research by the media and the education system shape the way we think. Therefore, it has become a highly political and ideological field of activity where the quest for Truth has become secondary.

All in all, the use of an universal language is a positive thing because it allows us to access the whole mass of knowledge about this or that topic.

Also English is, overall, a very efficient language enabling to convey meaning and nuance in short phrasings (relative to most other languages).

Now, there's one point where language and lack of scientific creativity might be correlated. When the language is not plastic enough, it doesn't provide the researchers with the news terminologies that are necessary to map the uncharted territories he's exploring. See, for example, Lobaczewski 'Political Ponerology' about the lack of adequate vocabulary to properly explore the 'psychopathy' territory. As a consequence, even the title of Lobaczewski's book is a neologism: 'ponerology'.

This being said English is, to my knowledge, one of the most plastic and evolving language where the thesaurus sensibly evolves every year.

From Laura

Whatever else, the second language should be taught from the earliest ages because that is when language systems of the brain are most plastic and can pick it up faster and easier. And then, of course, with the second language come additional brain skills AND the ability to figure out - via communication - whether or not the education system is adequate.

So, sorry, the second language has to come first.

Click to expand...

Ok agreed. Or they can came in parallel, The "Symbolic" one and the "Natural language" one, both have to operate in syntactic routines.

From Laura

Nobody is talking about "changing science language" except that there needs to be a universal one. How can you know whether the scientific facts are "equally factual" if you can't check and compare what is coming out of the science of other places?

Believe me, I face into this problem every day - and have done for years - and language is the key.

Click to expand...

From Felipe4

I think in math the concepts are more universal than anything, because how else can you call a triangle but triangle. In plants the just picked the most obvious features to describe it, like corpse plant, when in reality is not a plant blooming a corpse from inside it just smells like what we and flies perceive as such, or they don't call it "plat that blooms 3 times in a lifetime".
The descriptions are based on some characteristics that makes it unique.

Click to expand...

Indeed Math maybe can be the tool that can make the concepts more Universal. the question is What kind of Math???.

As Laura states: " How can you know whether the scientific facts are "equally factual" if you can't check and compare what is coming out of the science of other places?"

From my point of view a junction between The "Symbolic" one and the "Natural language" one is the Key. So that both have to operate in syntactic routines.

in other words being RE-CURSIVES in Nature. Algebra any one?.

Those can be the tools for the "Check and Compare" Conundrum that Laura is facing in asserting the "equally factual" Problem.

This paper: Thought Beyond Language: Neural Dissociation of Algebra and Natural Language by Martin M. Monti1, Lawrence M. Parsons, and Daniel N. Osherson

maybe can give us some light... _http://www.scottbarrykaufman.com/study-alert-thought-beyond-language-neural-dissociation-of-algebra-and-natural-language/

Here is an interesting excerpt:

A central question in cognitive science is whether natural language provides combinatorial operations that are essential to diverse domains of thought. In the study reported here, we addressed this issue by examining the role of linguistic mechanisms in forging the hierarchical structures of algebra. In a 3-T functional MRI experiment, we showed that processing of the syntax-like operations of algebra does not rely on the neural mechanisms of natural language. Our findings indicate that processing the syntax of language elicits the known substrate of linguistic competence, whereas algebraic operations recruit bilateral parietal brain regions previously implicated in the representation of magnitude. This double dissociation argues against the view that language provides the structure of thought across all cognitive domains.

Click to expand...

And the focal point related to RECURSIVENESS as a Universal tool for symbolic Constructs in Algebra and Natural Languages.

An influential view of human cognition situates core components of natural language at the center of diverse domains of
thought (Levinson, 2003; Whorf, 1940). Arithmetic reasoning is often seen in this light because it is plausible that the
structured hierarchy found in algebraic expressions, such as 2 × (5 − 3), is mentally constructed from syntactic routines
underlying the interpretation of sentences, such as “The man saw the boy who kicked the ball.” In both cases, rules for evaluating
subparts of the structure must be applied recursively in order to arrive at the semantic value of the whole. Hauser, Chomsky, and
Fitch (2002) state that both language and number rely on a recursive computation that exploits the same neural mechanism
operating over linguistic structures. Recursion, they suggest, evolved over time from a process that was highly domain
specific to a process that was domain general, and this change gave humans the possibly unique ability to use recursion to
solve nonlinguistic problems, notably, numerical manipulation. Likewise, Spelke and Tsivkin (2001) stated that natural
language was the “most striking combinatorial system” of the human mind and that formal mathematics might be one of this
system’s “richest and most dramatic outcomes” (p. 84).
The idea that nonlinguistic domains of thought, such as number, may co-opt the recursive machinery of language is
made explicit by Chomsky (1998). He argued that the human faculty for arithmetical reasoning can be thought of as being
abstracted from language and that it operates by “preserving the mechanisms of discrete infinity and eliminating the other
special features of language” (p. 169). Similarly, Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky (2005) state that the only clear demonstrations
that recursion operates in human cognitive domains come from mathematical formulas and computer programming,
which clearly employ the same reasoning processes that language does. This view has been sharpened by the proposal that
the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) acts “supramodally” to forge complex hierarchical dependencies for nonlinguistic
domains (Fadiga, Craighero, & D’Ausilio, 2009; Tettamanti & Weniger, 2006). The former authors propose that IFG and ventral
premotor cortex “are tuned to detect and represent complex hierarchical dependencies, regardless of modality and
use” (p. 448). The authors discuss this idea in the context of language, action, and music, because these three domains
“share a common syntax-like structure” (p. 448). As discussed, however, this same syntax-like structure is also present
in algebraic expressions, a characteristic that has been proposed to derive directly from the properties of natural language.

Click to expand...

I remember that The C's made mention to Geometry (algebra being implicit to me) as being a good key to understanding here in 3D
I can remember the right session citation, help will be highly appreciated.

Here is the link of the full paper _http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Monti-Parsons-Osherson-2012.pdf

Ahh ok. I think i get it when it is said "in english" as socially standard rather than deffinite universal descriptions, i was thinking something different.

Things have been added to the scientific understandings, i saw on a discovery channel documentary some years back that the number 0 was first used in Egypt to describe a null value, now i don't have the source or ever check uppon this for validity but i found this on wiki

I think all the numerical systems can be brought up to take a look and compare at what other cultures had in common and what not:

_https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numeral_systems

It is a good question mariowil7


As for english, i agree, it is socially more suited for it, of course there is the individual perspective, but feelings aside english and spanish as far as i know are very maleable languages.
Something Laura said about countries being strict about their laguages rigns true, as for whatever reason spain and japan that i know of don't accept other pronounciation than that which sound like it in their spelling by rule of their laguage.

Computer in japan i believe is spelled the same but it is pronounced a certain way and is not acceptable the english pronounciation.

And BrenXHkm pretty much explained this point with an inmediate example, it is simply more comvenient and universal, it'd be a problem for many if the forum was in Armenian for example..

Learning the language of science requires the comprehension of mathematics.
Science uses statistics to infer certain things:trends, probabilities, levels of bias (yes there even is a calculation for how likely a meta-analysis is bias due to selective publication) etc.

A paper may conclude that a result is significant.
All this means is that within a pre selected significance parameter (most commonly a 95% confidene interval) there is only a 5% likelyhood that the result was due to chance and 95 % likely to be true.
However, what is often not commented on is the relevance of the result.
For example, therapeutic agent X may be shown to be better than therapeutic agent Y for a particular outcome. It can be said that it is statistically significant. But if this difference is so minor that it is pointless to use X, particularly if it is at great cost.
This often is seen in cancer treatments. For example a particular drug may have been shown to increase the chance of survival, at great cost to the quality of life of that person. What is seldom reported is that the increased chance of survival is so small or only an extra 6 months etc that its not worth the distress or pain and lack of quality time with family in terminal cases.

Thats just an example.
So words are one thing but if you know what the numbers really indicate then you begin to understand how these can also be interpretted in many ways. How figures can be omitted or selectively reported.
These types of things are easy to spot when you know what you are looking for.

Not only that but I recall a seminar I attended on data management in research and the presenting statistician quoted a British Medical Journal article. It surveyed the statistical analyses of a cross section of studies. It was found that 80% of studies published in the BMJ used an incorrect statistical model.
Designing studies is difficult, designing good studies that actually produce quality useful information even more difficult. That is why science requires replication and peer review. The peer review process to determine whether a study is good or not is very political, it advances and destroys careers.

And this is well before the public media gets a hold of anything, who then often simply look at study conclusions and quote it as gospel.

Is this helpful?
I am sure there are lots of other forum members with alot more research experience than I that can provide further explanations.