Knowledge as Language?

Qoeleth · #1 Jul 16, '12, 9:21 pm

It would seem that all knowledge (in an academic or scientific sense) is really only knowledge of language. If a person was to sit down, and memorize and understand, a complete dictionary of physics or psychology (for example), that person could then be justifably described as having 'a good knowledge of physics' or 'a good knowledge of psychology'. The same would seem to apply for other fields of study (philosophy, botanty, llinguistics, etc.)

So, if knowledge of a field of study may be equated to knowledge relating to the language of that field of study, it might be concluded that all education (excluding practical education) is really education about language.

Taking this further, it would seem that an increase of the knowledge of a field is therefore really only an increase in the richness of the language relating to that field (i.e. new terms and definitions are invented), since the field really IS language.

It would seem that all human knowledge (excepting, again, practical skills), then, is an edifice of language. And, indeed, the library ( a vast collection of words- which we call knwoledge) seems to prove this. And, indeed, there are many 'historians' who might claim to know about the French Revolution, when, in fact, they have only encountered 'words' relating to the Frnech Revolution, but not the thing itself.

Do we ever really know 'philosophy' or do we simple know 'the appropriate use of words used in philosophical discourse'? Are the two, in fact, identical?

Is all theoretical knowledge ultimately about words?

Drinkgasoline · #2 Jul 17, '12, 2:19 am

You're right that a lot of learning is to do with vocabulary, however I would disagree with you, considering when you learn, you learn the application of the knowledge and how to use it in research, experiments, essays and other things. You also learn HOW things work, not just what they are. For example, someone can still be a fantastic biologist and understand the mechanism behind ATP synthesis or photophosphorylation but might not be able to define each word and phrase to do with the theory...

PumpkinBell · #3 Jul 17, '12, 2:53 am

An interesting point and good argument, but I disagree. If this argument is to be taken as truth, we have to be able to accept it in all contexts and situations. Thus, we have to accept that without any language, it is impossible to learn anything at all. This I'm unable to accept, as even animals which are thought to be irrational beings are able to "learn" things such as the danger of a certain object, area or being.

But, against that, it could be argued that animals do not truly learn as they merely become conditioned to respond to certain stimuli in a way which will better their chances of survival. This I would personally have to accept.

So, we come to the question of what learning truly is, I would personally define learning as the ability to obtain knowledge (something we know as truth) and the ability to use this knowledge in a dynamic way that is not simply a reaction to stimulus.

So, the question is, can we learn things about the world without language? Well, if take an early Homo sapien as an example, he may come to understand that in the sea there are dangerous creatures through his experiences, but also comes to understand that there are fish in that sea that are good for food, he may then decide to to go in the sea anyway, thereby learning something without language at all.

Katholish · #4 Jul 17, '12, 2:30 pm

If that were true, I should consider someone who does not know my language a complete and utter idiot, not knowing a single thing in the world.

Knowledge has to due with the nature of things, not the language used to describe those natures.

Qoeleth · #5 Jul 17, '12, 2:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katholish

If that were true, I should consider someone who does not know my language a complete and utter idiot, not knowing a single thing in the world.

Knowledge has to due with the nature of things, not the language used to describe those natures.

Well, if they do not know your language, they would are least know some language. If a person did not know any language, with respect to theoretical knowledge, they perhaps would be regarded as being lacking.

Take the field of philosophy. A person may have insights into the nature of reality, humanity, life, etc. (which all people do), but may not have any way of expressing or explaining their knowledge into anything like a coherent or comprehensible system. Would such a person be considered 'knowledgable' about philosophy? On the other hand, a person may know comprehensively (if this were possible) the terms of philosophy- the jargon, so to speak- and express themselves with great clarity. Who will be considered more 'knowledgable'?

I suggest that what we recognise as 'knowledge' is always, to some extent, communal- that it needs to be accompanied by a means of expression, and that possession of this means of expression is (in practice) indistinguishable from possession of the knowledge itself.

PumpkinBell · #6 Jul 17, '12, 3:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Well, if they do not know your language, they would are least know some language. If a person did not know any language, with respect to theoretical knowledge, they perhaps would be regarded as being lacking.

Take the field of philosophy. A person may have insights into the nature of reality, humanity, life, etc. (which all people do), but may not have any way of expressing or explaining their knowledge into anything like a coherent or comprehensible system. Would such a person be considered 'knowledgable' about philosophy? On the other hand, a person may know comprehensively (if this were possible) the terms of philosophy- the jargon, so to speak- and express themselves with great clarity. Who will be considered more 'knowledgable'?

I suggest that what we recognise as 'knowledge' is always, to some extent, communal- that it needs to be accompanied by a means of expression, and that possession of this means of expression is (in practice) indistinguishable from possession of the knowledge itself.

Fair points, but I'd still have to disagree. Having "knowledge" is not necessarily the same thing as being perceived by others as "knowledgeable". That is, unless you are exclusively referring to someone's academic knowledge, which is in itself is judged on the ability to communicate the understanding of that knowledge to others.

A lot of other knowledge can be learnt without language, and needn't be communicated at all - I personally wouldn't base my definition of knowledge on social concepts, as a pose to philosophical ones.

Katholish · #7 Jul 17, '12, 10:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Well, if they do not know your language, they would are least know some language. If a person did not know any language, with respect to theoretical knowledge, they perhaps would be regarded as being lacking.

Language is subjective. By your arguement, if your knowledge of physics is based in the Hindi language, and my knowledge of physics is based in the German language, we do not actually know the same material, but completely different material. Our entire ability to do a little thing called translate is based on the fact that knowledge is not language and is not subjective, but is rather a universal truth abstracted from a common experience of nature.

Language may indeed be a means for us to organize our knowledge, and it may even be necessary for any form of complex knowledge (what we may call a science), but the language is still a tool of our intellect and not the knowledge itself.

Quote:

Take the field of philosophy. A person may have insights into the nature of reality, humanity, life, etc. (which all people do), but may not have any way of expressing or explaining their knowledge into anything like a coherent or comprehensible system. Would such a person be considered 'knowledgable' about philosophy? On the other hand, a person may know comprehensively (if this were possible) the terms of philosophy- the jargon, so to speak- and express themselves with great clarity. Who will be considered more 'knowledgable'?

Being able to recite the definition of something is very different from understanding it. Even if he is unable to express it to anyone else, the person who has an actual insight into the nature of some reality is far more knowledgable than one who has memorized a definition without truly understanding it. Incidentally, the term "understanding" is itself derived from the point I am trying to make, under=sub, standing=stance. Understanding pertains to the perception of substances (i.e. natures).

Quote:

I suggest that what we recognise as 'knowledge' is always, to some extent, communal- that it needs to be accompanied by a means of expression, and that possession of this means of expression is (in practice) indistinguishable from possession of the knowledge itself.

This is sort of like saying that in practice, the soul requires the physical organ of the brain to function in the world, and that the possession of a functioning brain is (in practice) indistinguishable from having a soul. It does not follow that a brain and a soul are the same thing, just as language and knowledge are not the same thing. There might be an interdependency in practice, but that is a far different thing from what you started out saying.

No one understands what a thing is simply by hearing the word used to describe it. Language follows knowledge, not the other way round. It is also completely possible to understand a concept without having terminology to adequately express it.

Qoeleth · #8 Jul 17, '12, 10:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katholish

Language is subjective. By your arguement, if your knowledge of physics is based in the Hindi language, and my knowledge of physics is based in the German language, we do not actually know the same material, but completely different material. Our entire ability to do a little thing called translate is based on the fact that knowledge is not language and is not subjective, but is rather a universal truth abstracted from a common experience of nature.

Language may indeed be a means for us to organize our knowledge, and it may even be necessary for any form of complex knowledge (what we may call a science), but the language is still a tool of our intellect and not the knowledge itself.

Being able to recite the definition of something is very different from understanding it. Even if he is unable to express it to anyone else, the person who has an actual insight into the nature of some reality is far more knowledgable than one who has memorized a definition without truly understanding it. Incidentally, the term "understanding" is itself derived from the point I am trying to make, under=sub, standing=stance. Understanding pertains to the perception of substances (i.e. natures).

This is sort of like saying that in practice, the soul requires the physical organ of the brain to function in the world, and that the possession of a functioning brain is (in practice) indistinguishable from having a soul. It does not follow that a brain and a soul are the same thing, just as language and knowledge are not the same thing. There might be an interdependency in practice, but that is a far different thing from what you started out saying.

No one understands what a thing is simply by hearing the word used to describe it. Language follows knowledge, not the other way round. It is also completely possible to understand a concept without having terminology to adequately express it.

All your points are valid and true. My observation of a relationship approaching complete identity is based on my experience in educational settings. The students with the best command of language do the best in all fields (at least in the humanities). The likely grade of a paper (at anything up to undergrad level), can largely be 'sensed' by the mastery of language it shows, or lack thereof, aside from its content.

Imagine this (and this is NOT a purely hypothetic situation)- a person knows almost nothing about a question, yet, through fluency in language and wide vocabulary, manages to write a paper which not only passes, but is awarded a good grade.

Perhaps this is to confuse the appearance of knowledge from knowledge itself. But perhaps the distinction is not only blurred 'in practice' but also in essence.

xzereus · #9 Jul 18, '12, 7:52 am

A great thread! I think many posters are entirely missing the point of this thread. I would like to qualify the definition from your original post as:

For any given academic or scientific subject, if a given individual were to sit down and perfectly memorize an all-encompassing dictionary of perfectly defined words from that particular subject, it may be said that he has a perfect knowledge of the subject.

The reason that this must hold true is that perfect understanding of each word would imply that there is no aspect of that word which the reader does not understand. Of course, as post-modern thought tells us, language is our enemy, and expression of ideas and concepts as language can never be perfect, so this situation is automatically an entirely theoretical one. This is complicated further by the fact that even if an all-encompassing dictionary of perfectly defined words for each subject existed, no reader could perfectly understand any of the words.

This is quite visible in our current collegiate system. Often, particularly in math and science courses, the professor will challenge the students with a question regarding a specific term or concept. Students then attempt to come to a solution (usually without success) until the professor resumes the lecture and expresses the solution of the concept in the form of a proof. Had the students perfectly understood the terms and concepts as they were defined in a complete and perfect dictionary, this would not be necessary.

In conclusion, I believe that, although the idea behind this thread is at least partially valid, obtaining perfect knowledge is ultimately impossible, if only for the fact that perfect understanding and perfect expressions in language are impossible, as a few other posters pointed out. As also pointed out, only establishes an interdependence between language and knowledge, not an equivalence.

ReapReason · #10 Jul 18, '12, 10:01 am

Its true that having the knowledge that 2+2=4 is not necessarily knowledge of why such is true.

Knowledge and understanding doesn't necessarily go hand in hand. However, language is an outgrowth of our experiences. Language has a logical structure. Even fiction is based to some extent on the things we experience.

Qoeleth · #11 Jul 18, '12, 6:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzereus

A great thread! I think many posters are entirely missing the point of this thread. I would like to qualify the definition from your original post as:

For any given academic or scientific subject, if a given individual were to sit down and perfectly memorize an all-encompassing dictionary of perfectly defined words from that particular subject, it may be said that he has a perfect knowledge of the subject.

The reason that this must hold true is that perfect understanding of each word would imply that there is no aspect of that word which the reader does not understand. Of course, as post-modern thought tells us, language is our enemy, and expression of ideas and concepts as language can never be perfect, so this situation is automatically an entirely theoretical one. This is complicated further by the fact that even if an all-encompassing dictionary of perfectly defined words for each subject existed, no reader could perfectly understand any of the words.

This is quite visible in our current collegiate system. Often, particularly in math and science courses, the professor will challenge the students with a question regarding a specific term or concept. Students then attempt to come to a solution (usually without success) until the professor resumes the lecture and expresses the solution of the concept in the form of a proof. Had the students perfectly understood the terms and concepts as they were defined in a complete and perfect dictionary, this would not be necessary.

In conclusion, I believe that, although the idea behind this thread is at least partially valid, obtaining perfect knowledge is ultimately impossible, if only for the fact that perfect understanding and perfect expressions in language are impossible, as a few other posters pointed out. As also pointed out, only establishes an interdependence between language and knowledge, not an equivalence.

And, at some point, the distinction between a dictionary (which attempts to tell us about words) and an encyclopedia (which attempts to tell about things) is blurred. A complete dictionary would, in effect, be the same as a complete encyclopedia.

The fact that the distinction between dictionary and encyclopedia is so nebulous suggests that the distinction between knowledge of words and knowledge of 'things' is not a sustainable one.

ThinkingSapien · #12 Jul 18, '12, 7:06 pm

There's different stages in memorization of knowledge followed by stages of application of knowledge.

There's a book called "Situation Leadership" (which has nothing to do with leadership) by Dr. Stephen R. Covey (he died yesterday :-( ) that explains learning in more detail. People that specialize in training can also tell you more about this. I've had a few conversations on the topic with my friends that work in training.

Linusthe2nd · #13 Aug 21, '12, 12:24 am

Wrong. Language is a tool for communicating our concepts about reality and the thoughts we have about reality to other people. This may be in verbal or written form. The individual elements of language, including parts of speech and grammar represent the agreed upon conventions or rules by which language is made meaningful. Knowledge is the sum total of what we know about reality. Only some of this has been organized into formal branches of leaning or recorded in dictionaries, encyclopedias,etc. This knowledge of course is expressed in language. The words themselves which make up the language are merely signs or symbos representing our conceps, facts, etc. We string the signs together to form statements of fact or to form propositions representing the concepts or acquired knowledge we have about them.

So knowledge is what we learn about reality and language is the way we express the knowledge.

What I have described is a realistic theory of knowledge.

So, no. Knowledge is not language.

Qoeleth · #14 Aug 22, '12, 2:59 pm

.
But the distinction between 'reality' and 'language' is blurred (or non-existent) in many fields of knowledge. Take philosophy. Can philosophy exist without language? Or history? Or mathematics?

Fields of learning seem, generally, to deal primarily with symbolic, rather than real orders. To illustrate this, one could (perhaps) beome an 'expert' on physics, simply from text books, without ever doing a single experiment. This seems to show that 'knowledge' (in this and similar cases) amounts to mastery of the symbolic order of expression.

Let's consider a philosopher- say Heidegger. Now, did Heidegger actually have more 'real' information on 'Being' than anyone else? Probably not, but he did have the skills and creativity to 'express' (or 'create') a complex symbolic order of texts. So, his knowledge seems to be primarily linguistic, rather than 'substantial' (if such a distinction can even be upheld).

So, no. Knowledge is not language.

[/quote]