{Reason in Science [continued (5)]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:253-254][19890913:0927e]{Reason in Science [continued (5)]}[13th September 1989]

19890913.0927

[continued]

This last* example of scientific reasoning is more problematic, in my view still an open question, and one which goes to the foundation of the issue, which is whether intellection is superior to all other modes of thought – particularly intuition – or not. But the common theme linking the other examples is poor use of English, and as logic can only (so far as I know) be expressed by us in language, whether literary or symbolic, scientific reasoning can properly be criticise[d] for its expression in, or understanding of, [–] that is for its use of, [–] literary language, as it can for any other defect of practical method.

One advertiser seems to have tumbled to this defect, though, in the same issue:** –

‘Shamed by Your

Mistakes in English?

[“]Between you and I, Jane was

invited as well as myself

I expect you was asked too![”]’

***

*[See last previous entry]

**[New Scientist 1681[,] 890909]

***[Advertisement for the Practical English Programme, copied into the ms at p254. The quotation under the headline is in a speech bubble in a photograph of a man purportedly saying it to a possibly younger woman who is evidently not impressed.]

[PostedBlogger27042020]