LINGUIST List 3.573

Tue 14 Jul 1992

Disc: Culture-Dependency

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. , physics and culture
2. , culture-dependency

>From: bert peeters <peeterstasman.cc.utas.edu.au>

>I'm currently into a bit of a slinging match with a physicist who reckons
>physics is culture independent. Physicists do not, according to his view,
>create their concepts, but discover them by observation of the facts. He
>seems to be convinced that if physics had been persued by the Navahos or
>by some Highland Papuans first (his and my examples in private discussion)
>it would be exactly the same kind of physics than the one developed in
>the West that we know now. Has anyone some views on this? I'm trying to
>tell him he is wrong. Or am I?

I only want to make the following two points clear (please reckon them as
my belief):

(1) Physics (as it is) is independent of culture;

(2) The history of Physics, and it's accidental present state of
development, is of course dependent on culture like anything that has a
history.

To me, the Whorfian kind of relativity is invalid as far as Physics in
concerned.

Just an honest expression of view,

Tom Lai.

Bert Peeters has chosen the field for his disputation from a very narrow and
jargon-ridden area. The existence of wider culture-specific world views are
well enough described (e.g. Whorf). And culture-specificity is not restricted
to different idioms. He should ask his physicist colleague where to find
phlogiston these days. Bill Bennett.