Education distorting science and logic

[Winston Blake]

That 'fence' example was crap. It's not that the Navajo is better because he's Navajo, it's that he does a better job because the ranger chose to give a crappy report.

The basis for the assignment is to see that the Navajo has a language that can express concepts in a shorter amount of words in greater detail, thus (I'm guessing here) making it superior.

Actually the idea seems to be that it's not that Navajo is a better language, it's that thinking in Navajo somehow makes you better at thinking:

Are all things that we know a function of different languages or discourses? If your answer is something like "The Navajo language is a better language because there are more words," this is not what I am looking for. Please do not write this as it will mean that you have missed the basic concept of this exercise. What I am asking you to do is to describe how people from one culture might actually see an object (such as a fence) and know or conceptualize it in a different way than people from another culture because of the array of words they have learned from their language.

This seems to be either pointless or self-evident. What? Is this supposed to be criticising the 'Western-culture boring dogmatic view of the world'? This example doesn't achieve that. By it's logic, if I (the Western science-rimjobbing pigdog that I am) learned Navajo (or modified English vocabulary and syntax to match its power to the describe natural world), I would suddenly be able to 'conceptualise objects' just as well as the 'superior' Navajo in the example!

All the example suggests is that language that has better 'speech density' for certain types of information make it more efficient to think in that area. No shit. Scientists and engineers have a whole range of sublanguages with extremely dense meaning in their vocabulary and syntax, as Darth Wong showed. The efficiency of manipulating concepts in science and engineering (with their comprehensive worldwide scope) far surpasses that of the Navajo descriptions of nature.

An English version would be far longer with more words.

Wrong. English, when properly used, is a very concise language. I don't know how to say things in Navajo, but ever since 1918 and long before then the standard had been set. Obviously the English Professor has to brush up on his Strunk.

If anything, languages that use more words are more versatile because they can break up information. If a Navajo guy had to describe a single fence that he wasn't sure was wood, wire or chain link, he'd have to use at least three words to get that across. An English speaker would just say 'A fence'. When greater density is needed (such as in science), a jargon can easily grow from words in the English 'parent language', enabling an English speaker to acquire conceptual efficiency in any required field. Also, cock.

[brianeyci]

This is just how he would respond to try and prove the point.

"A reedish fence is halted, broken naturally."

Seven words, do I get a cookie.

Now you may say that that doesn't exactly represent what is meant in Navajo but that is translation. You can find a counter example, even without mathematics and science, that when translated into Navajo would need more words.

The above is a terrible sentence anyway since it uses an adjective and an adverb. Adjectives and adverbs are weaknesses, not strengths and if the Navajo language requires you to use a lot of adjectives and adverbs which I doubt, it may produce florid prose. It looks like cultural differences. Take a poet instead of white trash ranger and no doubt she would do an even better job than me, and take a Navajo equivalent of a redneck and he'd do a horrible job.

[Darth Wong]

How would the Navajo express "the indefinite integral of a polynomial function?"

Beats the hell out of me. In my version of the assignment, I made the point that the Navajo language would likely not be as adapt at describing more modern phenomenon (let alone deeper math and science problems) such as computers, disks, planes, etc.

I didn't get a response, of course. But considering that ZAMM continues this by questioning science and logic itself, he would likely not take that answer as being good enough. After all, IF the Navajo were adept at math, science, etc, they may find a way of expressing it in a simplier and more well defined way (this isn't my argument, just his).

It's interesting how he argues that language defines the way you think, but refuses to apply his own logic to the Navajo. By his own logic, the Navajo language's inability to describe mathematical and scientific concepts means that people who speak Navajo are incapable of comprehending math and science. Not just "less efficient", but actually incapable.

As for the efficiency argument, that ignores the need for accuracy. A computer is perhaps the least efficient communicator of all, in the sense that a computer "word" is one byte, and a 24-bit 1600x1200 image of that fence is 5.76 million words. But that image will describe that fence far more accurately than any qualitative Navajo or English description. Moreover, a good English description of the fence would describe some of its dimensions and angles: an area where Navajo is probably very weak, and one which the author of ZAMM no doubt excluded for precisely that reason.

[CaptJodan]

Actually the idea seems to be that it's not that Navajo is a better language, it's that thinking in Navajo somehow makes you better at thinking:

You're right, that was idiotic of me.

This seems to be either pointless or self-evident. What? Is this supposed to be criticising the 'Western-culture boring dogmatic view of the world'? This example doesn't achieve that. By it's logic, if I (the Western science-rimjobbing pigdog that I am) learned Navajo (or modified English vocabulary and syntax to match its power to the describe natural world), I would suddenly be able to 'conceptualise objects' just as well as the 'superior' Navajo in the example!

Ahh, incorrect (by his logic). This was touched on in my meeting with him. If you simply learned Navajo, you would still THINK in the English language, and translate in your head from Navajo to English and then back again. You would still see the world in an "English" manner of sorts, not picking out the details that Navajo forces you to pick out in order to express yourself. Athough if said language forces you to express these things, wouldn't you then have to think that way? Perhaps that's advanced Navajo, 7000 level or something.

All the example suggests is that language that has better 'speech density' for certain types of information make it more efficient to think in that area. No shit. Scientists and engineers have a whole range of sublanguages with extremely dense meaning in their vocabulary and syntax, as Darth Wong showed. The efficiency of manipulating concepts in science and engineering (with their comprehensive worldwide scope) far surpasses that of the Navajo descriptions of nature.

Agreed. With ZAMM (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence, incase anyone was confused by that) and White Noise, it was technology and science being called into question, while the above quote clearly values a more naturalistic world state by holding Navajo above English. It all stems back to a kind of anti-science and technology bias, I think. Which is damned hypocritical as it is an online class!

As for the efficiency argument, that ignores the need for accuracy. A computer is perhaps the least efficient communicator of all, in the sense that a computer "word" is one byte, and a 24-bit 1600x1200 image of that fence is 5.76 million words. But that image will describe that fence far more accurately than any qualitative Navajo or English description. Moreover, a good English description of the fence would describe some of its dimensions and angles: an area where Navajo is probably very weak, and one which the author of ZAMM no doubt excluded for precisely that reason.

So does this mean he's arguing that in "Happy Smiley Anti-western science" world that a computer designed from a different viewpoint and way of thinking would be more efficient in underlying structure?

[Darth Wong]

So does this mean he's arguing that in "Happy Smiley Anti-western science" world that a computer designed from a different viewpoint and way of thinking would be more efficient in underlying structure?

It means that he is measuring efficiency incorrectly. He is evaluating the denominator, but not the numerator. He doesn't give a damn how accurate the description is; only how elegant it seems to be. A good English description of the fence would include dimensioning data, information about its construction methodology, etc. It would be much wordier but also far more accurate. The Navajo, lacking many words for describing these kinds of concepts, would actually have to produce a vastly more complex description in order to equal a good English description of the fence.

This is the hole in his thinking; our language has developed many tools for highly accurate and objective description, because we have developed our social thinking along those lines. Those lines of thought are demonstrably superior, as it is impossible to design (for example) a complex bridge without the use of empirical thought and quantitative analysis. Something like the Confederation Bridge in Canada would have been simply impossible using non-quantitative non-empirical methods and ways of thought, as exemplified by his Navajo argument.

The problem of people like him is that they're complete ingrates. They rely daily on the products of western civilization which they take for granted, without realizing how they would not have been possible without the very kinds of thinking that he decries in his book.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Seems like this class should be called "Alternatives to western science" and offered in the "Useless Arts" dept. MY university had a technical writing course where you had to critique 2 published papers a week, and write your own.

I tested out, of course.

[Winston Blake]

This seems to be either pointless or self-evident. What? Is this supposed to be criticising the 'Western-culture boring dogmatic view of the world'? This example doesn't achieve that. By it's logic, if I (the Western science-rimjobbing pigdog that I am) learned Navajo (or modified English vocabulary and syntax to match its power to the describe natural world), I would suddenly be able to 'conceptualise objects' just as well as the 'superior' Navajo in the example!

Ahh, incorrect (by his logic). This was touched on in my meeting with him. If you simply learned Navajo, you would still THINK in the English language, and translate in your head from Navajo to English and then back again. You would still see the world in an "English" manner of sorts, not picking out the details that Navajo forces you to pick out in order to express yourself.

This is weird, I thought bilingual people were able to truly think in another language. Anyway, how on earth could you distinguish between someone who 'sees the world' in a Navajo way and someone who is just really, really good at 'translating' their English worldview into Navajo? The distinction between 'in-tune-with-nature true Navajo-speaker' and 'Western fake Navajo-speaker' makes no difference to any evidence, so it's irrelevant for describing reality. It is, however, rather convenient if you want to attack science, since it can be offered as 'proof' that those nasty scientists think 'poorly', yet it can never be falsified.

I have a feeling that an argument based on Occam's Razor and falsifiability would be falling on deaf ears.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

This is weird, I thought bilingual people were able to truly think in another language. Anyway, how on earth could you distinguish between someone who 'sees the world' in a Navajo way and someone who is just really, really good at 'translating' their English worldview into Navajo? The distinction between 'in-tune-with-nature true Navajo-speaker' and 'Western fake Navajo-speaker' makes no difference to any evidence, so it's irrelevant for describing reality. It is, however, rather convenient if you want to attack science, since it can be offered as 'proof' that those nasty scientists think 'poorly', yet it can never be falsified.

I have a feeling that an argument based on Occam's Razor and falsifiability would be falling on deaf ears.

People who are bilingual are merely people who fluently speak two languages. It takes considerably practice and immersion in a language to truely be able to think in that language.

It's very possible to do, but harder for non-native speakers. When I was really into my German, I had to practice to think without the English. It would ultimately fuck up my German if I didn't.

I believe you are correct though; empirically, most probably wouldn't be able to tell, if any, someone who is a really good translator or someone thinking in the language, but I would think that a good translator is one who is capable of thinking in the language anyway without a second thought.


I don't see how it can be used to attack science anyway. It seems awefully distractionary and irrelevant thinking or translating. It doesn't change the validity of the scientific way of thinking.