Abstract
This paper is about how the motto of the Royal Society has sometimes been misread, but it is also about how such a misreading could arise at all, and why it persists. I argue that the error is intimately associated with a traditional view of scientific language as a medium for descriptive reporting, a view which has been very influential in schools, and is consequently perpetuated in the public understanding of science. Much new scholarship confirms that this ‘straightforward’ view of what scientists do can no longer be accepted at face value, and that the role of language in science is more intimate and subtle in its interpretive and persuasive qualities. A renewed study of the motto is interesting in itself, but it will also serve to introduce these wider matters. Perhaps it may help some more teachers to escape from those received ideas about language which have restricted the range of learning activities in school science, and discouraged a full attention to the words in which scientists choose to express their ideas.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,History
Reference34 articles.
1. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument
2. Vickers Brian , ‘The Royal Society and English Prose Style: A Reassessment’, in Rhetoric and the Pursuit of Truth: Language Change in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
3. Cantor , op. cit. (15).
Cited by
26 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Heavenly sciences;The Names of Science;2024-07-04
2. Worlds and words of chemistry;The Names of Science;2024-07-04
3. More physics names;The Names of Science;2024-07-04
4. Fundamental particles;The Names of Science;2024-07-04
5. Electricity and electromagnetism;The Names of Science;2024-07-04