Scientific Method- Part 5

SHANKARA WROTE:
<<<<<<<
In what terms will I know it? In what terms will I describe it? Other than probably Saying "I'm moving damn fast!!!!!" which doesn't mean anything.That's what I mean when I say that understanding presupposes a mode of expression.
>>>>>>>>.

Well, nobody is doubting the fact that we need symbols to convey the ideas. The question that I am posing is, are these symbols adequate( or rather necessary) to describe the phenomenon. Just because of the fact that we make use of mathematical symbols does not mean that mathematical symbols alone can describe it. It just proves that we are used to mathematics so much that, we find it difficult to understand anything without symbols.

Also u need mathematical symbols only if u want to express your motion in terms of mathematical symbols. Say, you are running, can you not compare your running speed at different points in time? Can you not know when you are jogging and when sprinting? Do you need mathematical symbols to realize that there is some change in velocity? You may argue that, u may not be able to specify the speed at a particular point in time. But is not "speed at a particular instant" itself a construct of mathematics? Suppose man has not invented mathematics. U are not aware that there is something called speed, vector velocity etc. Can you not intuitively tell that a state of rest is different from a state of motion or for that matter, a state of higher velocity ( sprinting ) is different from a state of low velocity?

Just to prove my point, why does a deer run very fast when it sights a predator?. When it is sure that it is relatively safer, it slows down. You may argue that it does not need to communicate like humans do. We make this statement because it does not communicate like the way we do. Its quite possible that it is aware of its "speed" and uses a system of symbols and signs that is quite different from us and also tells this to its "friends".
So to experience motion or to understand motion, I believe, mathematical symbols are no neccessity. But if we want to describe motion so as to fit it into the mathematical framework that we have built up, I think we need mathematics.

Also your statement that I am moving damn fast makes a lot of sense if you can convince yourself that there are alternate ways of describing it other than X km/hr. I am moving damn fast says that

1. I am moving
2. I am sprinting, probably running at my maximum speed. ( I know my maximum speed intuitively but I don't know what is it in km/hr. depending upon your point of interest, you can consider it as half full or half empty).

Now talking of Capra's "map for territory"

I am perfectly with you on the fact that mathematical symbols are like the maps. It seems, u have not correctly understood my objection. My objection is not against symbols as representation of the phenomenon. My
objections are

1.You believe maps are not independent of territory. Perfectly agree, 100%.But you also seem to suugest that territory is not independent of maps. It is this backward mapping from concepts to reality that I object to.

2. you believe maps are true representation of territory. I contest this. Maps are just a perspective of the map-maker about the territory. If map maker changes, so does the map.

Now coming to the need for maps.

I believe maps are not essential. You can still understand without the maps. Just to prove my point, Do u need a map of your colony? Don't u feel u know more than what the map actually tells u? So should we not do a similar
thing in science as well. When we have understood certain phenomena, should we not
try to do away with the support tools just like we are doing away with the locality maps? This has been the crux of my argument so far. I believe if one can explain a phenomenon or for that matter, a concept when he can
define it without any jargon.