Question

Question

The sentence:  The very  form of the adjective "scientific" might give pause to those who would force the word to cover such topics as the skill of boxer, or a knowledge of the theory and practice of the sacraments.  ----- What exactly does "form" mean here?

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Nothing, as far as I can see, Taka-- the writer means the meaning of the word 'scientific'-- it is hard to imagine it covers such a wide range of topics as pugilistic skills and religious ceremonies.

Taka · Answer

Thank you, Mister!

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello Taka and MrM

Boxing was once called the 'sweet science', or the 'noble science'; and
'knowledge of the theory and practice of the sacraments' is presumably
a reference to comparative religious studies, or anthropology, both
of which were originally viewed askance in scholarly circles.

So perhaps the writer is scornfully rejecting the notion that either activity
could be classed as a science, by calling attention to the 'form' of the
word 'scientific', i.e. its etymology ('knowledge-producing').

To paraphrase:

'How can thrashing a man produce knowledge? How can the study of
mumbo-jumbo produce anything other than more mumbo-jumbo?'

A quaintly Arnoldian point of view.

MrP

MrPedantic · Answer

Afterthought:

I suppose the sentence could also appear in a criticism of writers such
as Barthes or Lévi-Strauss. Semiology is sometimes called a science,
for instance.

Taka · Answer

So you mean it's close to "the essence of science"?

MrPedantic · Answer

I would say the writer means: "look at the derivation of the word
'scientific' (i.e. scientia, 'knowledge', + -ficus, 'producing', = 'producing
knowledge'); you will then see that it can't apply to subjects such as
boxing and religion".

So I'm taking 'form' to mean "how the word 'scientific' is constructed".

MrP

Taka · Answer

That is, in other words, the essense of the word "science/scientific", taking the origin into account, right?

MrPedantic · Answer

I think the writer is making a slightly different point.

He's saying: "although some people want the meaning [i.e. the essence] of 'scientific' to include XYZ, I would limit its meaning to ABC. To support my argument, I direct your attention to how the word is spelt [i.e. its form]".

In other words, he is using the form of 'scientific' (its spelling, which reveals its derivation) to support his notion of its essence (what it means).

The contrast is between a word's origin (stable form) and its meaning (unstable essence).

MrP

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello Taka

Reading your later post, 'Structural Analysis', I see that my guesses
as to the context of your original sentence are somewhat askew.

Rather than attacking people who use the word 'scientific' to describe
anthropological studies of religious ceremonies, as I rashly presumed,
he's attacking those who use 'pseudo-scientific' terminology to
describe what happens during religious ceremonies.

As you probably already know, the book referred to, 'Science of the
Sacraments', is available online. Chapter 2 is particularly interesting,
and includes some instructive diagrams of the force-fields set up
by angels during church services:

http://www.global.org/Pub/CWL_Science2.asp

So I would adjust my previous post accordingly:
_______________________________________
Adjusted post:

He's saying: "although some people want the meaning [i.e. the essence]
of 'scientific' to include XYZ, I would limit its meaning to ABC. To support
my argument, I direct your attention to how the word is spelt [i.e. its form].
XYZ doesn't 'produce knowledge'. It produces mumbo-jumbo".

In other words, he is using the form of 'scientific' (i.e. its spelling, which reveals
its derivation) to support his own notion of its essence (i.e. what it means).
________________________________________

As a PS:
If I understand the context correctly, the writer of the sentence seems to
be indulging in a circular argument:

1. Such books claim to be scientific.
2. The word 'scientific' literally means 'knowledge-producing'.
3. Such books can't be described as 'knowledge-producing',
because they aren't scientific.

(But if you post further extracts, I'll no doubt have to revise this opinion
too.)

MrP

Taka · Answer

FYI, here is the entire paragraph:

Science is no static body of knowledge but rather an active process that can be followed through the ages. The sheer validity and success of the process in our own age has given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding of its nature and not a little misapplication of such terms as "science" and "scientific" . We hear of the scientific methods of some prize-fighter, and a book has been published on the Science of the Sacraments. There is nothing in the laws of any country which forbids its citizens from giving to the words of their language such significance as the may choose, but science and scientific as employed in these connections have no relation to the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal. The very form of the adjective "scientific" might give pause to those who would force the word to cover such topics as the skill of boxer, or a knowledge of the theory and practice of the sacraments. By derivation scientific implies knowledge making, and no body of doctrine which is not growing, which is not actually in the making can long retain the attributes of science.
------

I think the entire paragraph is saying that science is not an absolute, perfect thing, as the ordinal people would think. So whether it's "science (noun)" or "scientific (adjective)", we shouldn't misuse it; we just have to be careful about anything which is called "science" or "scientific". That's the whole message, I think. Therefore, I don't think the grammatical form as you pointed out really matters in this case.

Question

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions