Are the WOKS controlled by language?

language restricting the expression of scientific concepts?Knowledge has logical components too. For example, merely knowing both “she kicked him” and “he cried” is not what we would consider complete knowledge of those events. Knowledge of those events implies knowledge of their relation of each to the other. We only say we know, when we say “she kicked him, therefore he cried”, or “he cried because she kicked him”.The logical components are expressed in the structure of language, which is grammar. The question here is if grammar is restricting the possible logical concepts that can be expressed in language, therefore limiting our knowledge. Extending the previous example, if a child who (for the sake of this example) has never experienced pain or has not experienced pain from being kicked, is told by another child who has, “She kicked him. He cried”, would he get the idea of the cause and effect of pain there?Also, since we often think in language, can it be that language is restricting our thinking? Could it be that if we don’t think in language our thinking would be more powerful or effective?In short, our problems with language in relation to knowledge is: are there more things, properties, feelings, ideas or concepts than what we can have expressed with nouns, verbs, adjectives? Are there logical relations between them which we don’t have the language sufficient for? And does language restrict thought?The first problem, restated here, is mutability and unreliability of language. Before we think that language’s imprecision is so much a bad thing, let us remember that it is because of the desire for precision that we constantly add to and modify language. And unless we somehow developed direct mind-to-mind communication, it is our only form of communication. And why is a language so constantly changing? Simply because we are in the process of acquiring knowledge! Let’s go back to the information as data example. In the creation of standards, perfect and complete information of the form of information the data is supposed to represent is required but definitely acquirable. In an image file for example, the image is represented by many pixels arranged in a grid, each of which is given a color value. Thus the representation of an image as data is the location and color values of its constituent pixels. With a color value range that covers what the human eye can see, every single possible image can be represented as data. In short with have perfect knowledge of the possibilities of images. Note that what we have knowledge of is the form and scope of images. We know images are two-dimensional, and thus can be represented in a grid. And we know the range of colors the human eye can see. But with language, which in comparison has to deal with all forms of knowledge, such a perfect representation would be impossible, or even desirable. We don’t know what forms new knowledge would take, or the scope of it all. The answer to our concerns of the mutability of language therefore is that we don’t want to restrict language by fixing it. The answer to the unreliability (in relation to what other alternative?) of language, however is simply that it is but a consequence of mutability. We have to make do with careful definitions.The second problem is the inappropriateness of language as representation of knowledge that is abstract and different from the simple solution to problems of communication that it was. Well that simply is an idea assuming that language has to be what it always have been. Language changes because its users require it to. The change of language is simply the adaptation of it to the domain of its use. Take waves for example. Not the waves that surfers surf on, or even waves of ripples on water. Not sound waves or even light waves. Let’s take quantum probability waves. A very abstract concept, surely. But we can clearly see that we have named it a wave because it has similar properties to the normal waves we see and experience. But of course quantum probability waves don’t mean water waves. The word has been adapted for a new concept in physics. But how can normal words be adapted for such abstract concepts anyway? Aren’t there any abstract concepts that simply cannot be expressed in language? The answer is simply, no. This is due to how the mind works, and thus also the nature of language. The mind has certain “built-in” concepts, which then can be extended in a combinatorial fashion to arrive at all possible concepts, and certainly the concepts we have now. Take the concept of the wave for example. It is made possible thanks to little concepts of space and time that we so often take for granted. The shape of a wave is just many points in two-dimension that together forms the shape of the wave. And the waves change in time. This is just a simple example, if you examine all the concepts we have, you will find that they are but made of a few very fundamental concepts. Language is combinatorial too. Take the concept of possession for example. A child owns a toy. And her mom owns the child. Then we refer to the toy as “Mom’s child’s toys.” Language models the combinatorial nature of concepts. Language therefore is able to, from its method of conveying basic concepts, in a combinatorial manner, convey more complex concepts. Therefore, whatever concept we arrive at in thinking in whatever area of knowledge, we would we able to use language to express it.The same goes for the grammatical structure of language. Concepts that can be expressed with nouns are similar to logical concepts. In that they are complex in the sense that they are built of simpler concepts. For example, the logical concept of “implication” or “if a then b” is a complex combination of the basic concepts of “not”, “and”, in the form of “not, a and not b” or in symbolic logic “~(a.~b)”, where ~ is “not” and . is “and” and the parentheses to specify the order of operation as in mathematics. Therefore, all complex logical concepts can be expressed using the grammatical structure of language.Again, the same goes for thought. Since thinking is combinatorial, and language is combinatorial by virtue of being created through thought, language actually guides thought, not restrict it.In conclusion, instead of our language controlling or restricting our ways of knowing, in a sense it is our ways of knowing controlling and shaping language for its purpose. Language, Reason, and Emotion  Language is so much a part of human activity that it is easily taken for granted. The issues related to language and knowledge call for conscious scrutiny in order to recognize its influence on thought and behavior. Nature of Language How have spoken sounds acquired meaning? What is the nature of the connection between the sounds and what they are taken to represent? Is it possible to think without language? How does language extend, direct, or even limit thinking? To what extent does language generalize individual experience, classifying it within the experience of the group? To what extent does a personal experience elude expression in language? Can language be compared with other human forms of symbolic representation, such as conventionalized gestures, sign language for the deaf, dance, painting, music or mathematics? What might language share with these other forms in the communication of what we know? In what ways might it be considered distinct? To what extent is knowledge implicit in language? For example, could it be said that 'Saturday is in bed' does not convey meaning, even though the sentence is syntactically correct, because of the prior knowledge that days of the week are not physical objects? How do computer languages compare with the conventional written and spoken languages of everyday discourse? Language and Knowledge How does the capacity to communicate personal experiences and thoughts through language affect knowledge? To what extent does knowledge actually depend on language: on the transmission of concepts from one person or generation to another, and on exposure of concepts or claims to public scrutiny? How does language come to be known? Is the capacity to acquire language innate? If knowledge is based on an internal representation of the world does this imply that language is a necessary component of knowledge? In most of the statements heard, spoken, read or written, facts are blended with values. How can an examination of language distinguish the subjective biases and values which factual reports may contain? Why might such an examination be desirable? How apt is Voltaire's view that 'Error flies from mouth to mouth, from pen to pen, and to destroy it takes ages'? Functions of Language What different functions does language perform? Which are most relevant in creating and communicating knowledge? What did Aldous Huxley mean when he observed that 'Words form the thread on which we string our experiences'? In what ways does written language differ from spoken language in its relationship to knowledge? Can control of written language create or reinforce power? Is it reasonable to argue for preservation of established forms of language? Is it reasonable to ask for one language common to the whole world? What is the role of language in creating and reinforcing social distinctions, such as class, ethnicity and gender? What is the role of language in sustaining relationships of authority? Do people speak the same way to inferiors and superiors in a hierarchy? Does the professional authority speak in the same way as the person seeking opinion or advice? What may have been meant by the comment 'How strangely do we diminish a thing as soon as we try to express it in words'? (Maurice Maeterlinck) Language and Culture If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality? How is the meaning of what is said affected by silences and omissions, pace, tone of voice and bodily movement? How might these factors be influenced in turn by the social or cultural context? What is lost in translation from one language to another? Why? To what degree might different languages shape in their speakers different concepts of themselves and the world? What are the implications of such differences for knowledge? Linking Questions In completing the sentence, 'I know that . . .', one is making a knowledge claim. Why is it useful or necessary to express knowledge claims? Are there Areas of Knowledge where it is expected or required? Are there Ways of Knowing where it is not? To what extent is it possible to overcome ambiguity and vagueness in language? In what contexts might ambiguity either impede knowledge or contribute to it? Does the balance between precision and ambiguity alter from one discipline to another? Vidoes Tom and jerry Some other language