I don’t imagine anyone getting too excited about this question but… I am wondering about the origins of the words "science" and "knowledge." My understanding is that "science" stems from "scindere," meaning "to cut" or "to split." In other words, the way to gain understanding of nature is to cut it into bits and understand each piece one at a time.
Einstein said (something like this—the quote may be inexact) "It is an outcome of faith that nature, as she is perceptible to our five senses, takes the shape of a well-formed puzzle." And Stephen Hawking said, (again a loose quotation-very loose) "If everything else is connected to everything else in a fundamental way, it may be impossible to get to a full understanding by looking at the parts in isolation."
The whole of science is based on this approach, as seen in its etymology. I am wondering if the word "knowledge" itself shares the same roots. My understanding is that it comes from the Latin "gnocere" or "gnoscere" meaning to know—but that it is also related to "scindere."
Does our concept of Knowledge itself share roots with the scientific method? Or is there an independent concept of knowing something without having approached it "scientifically"- meaning, to know it without taking it apart (scindere), studying the fragments, and putting the idea back together? Maybe some other route to understanding?
Did I sound like a boy? :-[ Maybe because I’m describing what boys do? (I’m 100% girl!)
A quick look-up on YD shows:
Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split
The scientific method rests solely on the notion of isolating entities in order to investigate their properties. Thus, the object of study must be "cut" or "split" from any influence in order to be understood. There’s no possibility of an inherent, indispensable connection.
Sorry, second time recently that I have implied some one was male. :-[
However, I didn’t mean to, rather I was trying to suggest that taking things apart to see how they work seems to be a male thing to do. (Although we both have fallen in to this trap, by disecting our words! :))
Thanks for the second post, I see the connection more clearly now.
From your earlier post:
[quote author=Linnet link=board=etymology;num=1030135501;start=0#1 date=08/23/02 at 19:48:11]The Oxford Concise gives the origin of science as:
‘ME: from OFr, from L. scientia, from scire ‘know’‘.
That means the Latin word for knowledge, scire, also arises from the root meaning "to cut." But it just didn’t make it to English.
Any ideas about the origin of OE cnawan?
Sorry, second time recently that I have implied some one was male.
‘TsOK. I see I was embarrased. ??? Anyway, I have the word Isaac (the name of my 5 year old son) in my name- maybe it threw you off.
I’ll investigate OE cnawan a bit more tomorrow when I go to Uni. What I do know so far, from my study of OE and ME is that, over time, cn became the more familiar kn. Cnawan is from the earlier Germanic word gecnawan, where the ge prefix indicates past tense.
Will post again when I have more information to offer.
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=etymology;num=1030135501;start=0#0 date=08/23/02 at 16:45:01]I don’t imagine anyone getting too excited about this question…
Actually, I think it is the most exciting and frustrating topic one can make an inquiry into (as evidenced by the length of my post). Congratulations! A priori knowledge -v.s.- a posteriori knowledge is a wonderful philosophic topic that’s been creating headaches since ancient times. All the dizzying questions arise form this—cause to effect or effect to cause—form follows function or function follows form—general to particular or particular to general…nominal or realism…brown bag it alone in the park or lunch with co-workers at the deli?
Einstein said (something like this—the quote may be inexact) "It is an outcome of faith that nature, as she is perceptible to our five senses, takes the shape of a well-formed puzzle." And Stephen Hawking said, (again a loose quotation-very loose) "If everything else is connected to everything else in a fundamental way, it may be impossible to get to a full understanding by looking at the parts in isolation."
Or in another’s words that warms the poet’s heart and is the anthem of artists and idealists everywhere, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
The whole of science is based on this approach, as seen in its etymology…Does our concept of Knowledge itself share roots with the scientific method?
It’s true that the starting point of modern empirical science is induction, i.e., the scientific method. The structure of nature is hidden for the empiricist (Logic Hurley, page 568) and must be actively interrogated by following a path from particular to general in order to attain new, a posteriori knowledge by means of experiment and sensual experience.
But induction is not the only scientific approach. There is a deductive method as well that predates the the inductive one. Galileo, had a distinctively different approach. Like his contemporaries, he relied partly on the philosophy of the ancient Greeks (with one great difference I’ll mention in momentarily). This philosophy was focussed on knowledge of the a priori variety, i.e., causes and common notions—things you inherently know to be true by rational deductions from fundamental principles. For them, the meaning of experience was hidden. The whole as greater than the sum of the parts bodes well here. Purely empirical thinkers sneer at this as pre-scientific, but the ancient Greeks made no such distinction. For them sensual experience was merely for show and tell, a demonstration of a priori knowledge.
Galileo, as you know, was a key figure in the development of science as we know it today. He began the transformation from a demonstrative natural science to modern empirical science by being the first to incorporate experiments to test hypothesis. Consequently, he is a key transitional figure in the development of the scientific method.
I recommend this outstanding book for on this: Scientific Method: An historical and Philosophical Introduction by Barry Gower
Does our concept of Knowledge itself share roots with the scientific method? Or is there an independent concept of knowing something without having approached it "scientifically"- meaning, to know it without taking it apart (scindere), studying the fragments, and putting the idea back together? Maybe some other route to understanding?
I can’t answer as a linguist, but from a layperson’s stanpoint who has a healthy curiosity on this matter I would say that the subjects of knowledge and the scientific method definitely share roots but are now in a state of differentiation and have grown independent of each other. But I think there will be a reintegration at some point which I feel is the master plan (I am an artist after all). But for now, philosophy is subjective and introverted, while science is objective and extroverted. Both deal with knowledge but from opposite directions. Jung spoke of this difference at great length, and gives a wonderful historical perspective on the type problem in Psychological Types.
I’m actually pretty steeped in the topic myself, and am well aware that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. ;D The method by which we investigate nature has been looking at parts. So if there’s a different way to account for nature—other than parts and wholes—it could explain both the whole being greater than the sum of the parts via throwing out that approach because it was wrong altogether, AND explain the phenomena we see (what we now call the wholes) in a rational way. (Sorry! I’m an artist too, but that doesn’t negate good explanations!)
The scientific method assumes that nature is composed of parts. My question, which predates the investigations you quoted, and is actually a purely linguistic one: "science" comes from "scindere," meaning "to cut." Yes or no? And does "knowledge" itself come from a similar root? The glasses through which we see nature are partially revealed in the etymology of those words.
Your question doesn’t seem merely a linguistic one is the reason why I responded. I was just pointing out that there is indeed another kind of knowledge, (you did ask)…
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=etymology;num=1030135501;start=0#0 date=08/23/02 at 16:45:01]…is there an independent concept of knowing something without having approached it "scientifically"- meaning, to know it without taking it apart (scindere)…
Before I graciously exit this string, I should clarify my original point. Pure empiricism is based on the idea that the parts are greater than the whole, that life provides an embarrassment of information that needs to be, as you say "fragmented" from common experience in order to make some kind of sense of it. Less is more, decoration is crime, form follows function—all modern maxims that illustrate the attitude that objective knowledge supersedes the subject knowledge.
My point was that there is a flip side. Less is a bore—pardon all the architectural references, but they do provide some the best objective viewpoints—is an entertaining reaction to the fragmentation of modernism, hearkening back to a more subjective and philosophical time. Another example is metaphysics which is the pursuit of a certain kind of knowledge but it is considered pre-scientific and presumptuous by modern standards. It certainly doesn’t fragment common experience. [ADDED] Gnosis is yet another, classic example.
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=etymology;num=1030135501;start=0#9 date=09/01/02 at 14:53:19]
Why… why, why?
Because I tend to yabba yabba, as in less is a bore. More importantly I realize that you are asking for hard fast linguistic info that is obviously beyond—yet interests—me. My comments were intended to be color commentary.
My reference to classical-era "gnosis" was to point out one attitude of the existence of all-encompassing, essential, and infinite knowledge that needed to be guarded from fragmenting sensual experience. I understand there are ancient examples of such an attitude, just will take some research.
There was a time, ancient Greece, when Science & Philosophy were so intertwined that there weren’t two distinct disciplines.
One way in which I have often explained the parting of the ways, is to look at the concept of splitting the atom (a word which I believe loosely means "smallest indivisible part").
The "Philospher" says that the atom can be split, because it is matter of a certain size, and therefore can be broken down into two halves (like the ever lasting bar of chocolate). Case closed, he looks to the stars.
The "Scientist" spends 2 thousand years developing the tools to actually do it.
now the scientist is playing catch-up with the philosopher, looking out at the universe. - I used to have great arguments with a Physics student at University when he talked about the "size" of the universe, and the fact that it was "expanding." This simply does not compute to my philosophical brain.
Anyhow, there might have been a point to this!?!
Ah yes - I was therefore interested to discover that "science" is derived from "to cut." Seems like I haven’t been talking rubbish all these years.
[quote author=Dedalus link=board=etymology;num=1030135501;start=0#12 date=09/04/02 at 12:01:45]There was a time, ancient Greece, when Science & Philosophy were so intertwined that there weren’t two distinct disciplines.
One way in which I have often explained the parting of the ways, is to look at the concept of splitting the atom (a word which I believe loosely means "smallest indivisible part"). ... now the scientist is playing catch-up with the philosopher, looking out at the universe. - I used to have great arguments with a Physics student at University when he talked about the "size" of the universe, and the fact that it was "expanding." This simply does not compute to my philosophical brain.
What we know as Science was called Natural Philosophy up until about the 17th or 18th century.
We now know that atoms are not indivisible, so those philosophers were wrong with their gedanken experiments. Even their consituent parts are made up of weirdly-named parts. Who knows where it will all end? If you have trouble with the expanding universe, you’ll have real fun with some of the newer cosmological theories.
For accuracy’s sake: In yD’s entry, the etymology of ‘science’ lists its origin as being from Latin ‘scire’ = ‘to know’ and gives only a passing mention that it is probably related to ‘scindere’
To me, this suggests that at some point someone observed a similarity between knowing things and splitting them into parts, but it does not strongly support the theory that our whole concept of "knowing" came from the idea of splitting things up.
[quote author=Stargzer link=board=etymology;num=1030135501;start=0#13 date=09/04/02 at 16:31:13]If you have trouble with the expanding universe, you’ll have real fun with some of the newer cosmological theories.
Do you know, the concept of Multiverse actually makes complete sense to me!?!
More importantly I realize that you are asking for hard fast linguistic info that is obviously beyond—yet interests—me. My comments were intended to be color commentary.
