Reply
Thu 22 Jan, 2015 11:55 am
1) Does "communicated" mean "demonstrated" here?
2) What does "Northern" mean here?
Context:
Charges of "scientism" cannot be long in coming. No doubt, there are still some people who will reject any description of human nature that was not first communicated in iambic pentameter. Many readers may also fear that the case I am making is vaguely, or even explicitly, utopian. It isn't, as should become clear in due course.
However, other doubts about the authority of science are even more fundamental.
There are academics who have built entire careers on the allegation that the foundations of science are rotten with bias - sexist, racist, imperialist, Northern, etc.
Sandra Harding,a feminist philosopher of science, is probably the most famous proponent of this view. On her account, these prejudices have driven science into an epistemological cul-de-sac called "weak objectivity". To remedy thidire situation, Harding recommends that scientists immediately give "feminist" and "multicultural" epistemologies their due.
First, let's be careful not to confuse tis quite crazy claim for its sane cousin:
There is no question that scientists have occasionally demonstrated sexist and racist
@oristarA,
Nobody would like to answer this?
@oristarA,
No...communicated retains its normal meaning
You could also phrase it as "that was not first said in iambic pentameter"
Northern refers to the northern hemisphere which has, over the last few hundred years, tended to contain the countries which are dominant economically and militarily.
Do you understand what northern hemisphere implies in this context?
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
No...communicated retains its normal meaning
You could also phrase it as "that was not first said in iambic pentameter"
Northern refers to the northern hemisphere which has, over the last few hundred years, tended to contain the countries which are dominant economically and militarily.
Do you understand what northern hemisphere implies in this context?
Thank you Dlowan.
I understand Northern hemisphere to be equal to "developed world/countries". I'm not sure whether it is nearly there.
As for "that was not first said in iambic pentameter" thing. Why would they reject any description of human nature that was not first said in iambic pentameter ?
@oristarA,
Iambic pentameter is the most common and most natural meter in poetry in the English language. Our patterns of speech are such that frequently a person might be speaking in iambic pentameter without being aware of it. So the writer is really saying "... there are still some people who will reject any description of human nature that was not first communicated in
the English language." It's meant to be facetious.
@Lustig Andrei,
I disagree Merry.
If you look at the thrust of the quote, I think it means not communicated via what is considered serious literature....eg Shakespeare.....or even via Art generally.
The writer is sneering at those who criticise or deny the supremacy of science as the means to knowledge. English language as such has nothing to do with it.
@dlowan,
Let me consider that, Deb. You do seem to have a point.
@Lustig Andrei,
Indeed she has. At least, it's the way I see it too..
@timur,
I give in. Dlowan's right. I was hasty.
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
I disagree Merry.
If you look at the thrust of the quote, I think it means not communicated via what is considered serious literature....eg Shakespeare.....or even via Art generally.
The writer is sneering at those who criticise or deny the supremacy of science as the means to knowledge. English language as such has nothing to do with it.
What still makes me confused is that the books that the critics themselves read/communicate, e.g. the Bible, are not in iambic pentameter as well.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
What still makes me confused is that the books that the critics themselves read/communicate, e.g. the Bible, are not in iambic pentameter as well.
The first blank verse written in iambic pentameters was by Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey in his translation of the Æneid (composed c. 1540; published 1554-1557).
The bible translations from Greek and Latin to English followed at first even the word order of Latin/Greek, and became only later in the late Middle Ages closer to the native grammar of English.
But even in modern English (or any other language), the translations try to be as close to the texts as possible.
@oristarA,
You are taking polemic a little too literally Oristar.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace