자연과학으로서의 언어학 1.에서 트랙백
이 글의 필자는 자신의 주장 중 R. P. Feynman의 글까지 인용해서
자신이 하는 언어학은 자연과학이라고 주장하고 있다. 그런데 Feynman은
이런 류의 주장과 맞서 싸우기 위해 개인적으로 상당한 시간을 소모한 사람이기 때문에, 이는 실로 아이러니한 일이 아닐 수 없다.
언어학에서도 언어현상 관찰 -> 이론 수립 - > 이론검증 - > (이론수정)의 방법론이 그대로 사용되고 있습니다. 따라서, 언어학 역시 하나의 '과학'입니다. 이와 같은 방법론을 사용하고, 그 연구대상이 '자연 속에 존재하는 물질/생명체'일 경우에 우리는 그 학문을 '자연과학(Natural Science)'이라 부릅니다.저정도로 자연과학이 될 수 있다면 Dr.Rine의 ESP실험도 훌륭한 자연과학에 들어갈 수 있을 거라고 생각한다.
카고 컬트 과학: 과학, 사이비 과학, 스스로를 속이지 않는 방법(R. P. Feynman) 참고이런 현상은 왜 일어날까?
여기에 대해선 Martin Gardner가 흥미로운 설명을 제시한다.
그는 자신의 책 Fad and Fallacies: In the name of science에서 과학의 위신이 높아지는 시대가 오자 점점 과학의 이름을 내걸고 싶어하는
crankpseudo-scientist들이 늘어나는 세태를 날카롭게 꼬집는다.
또한 이들이 보이는 몇 가지 행동양태들을 잘 정리해 놓기도 했다.
pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies (Martin Gardner)
There are five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited.
(1) He considers himself a genius.
(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself. Frequently he insults his opponents by accusing them of stupidity, dishonesty, or other base motives. If they ignore him, he takes this to mean his arguments are unanswerable. If they retaliate in kind, this strengthens his delusion that he is battling scoundrels.
Consider the following quotation: "To me truth is precious.... I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong... . The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellowmen. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. ... But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still."
These sentences are from the preface of a booklet, published in 1931, by Charles Silvester de Ford, of Fairfield, Washington, in which he proves the earth is flat. Sooner or later, almost every pseudo-scientist expresses similar sentiments.
(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. It springs solely, he is convinced, from blind prejudice on the part of the established hierarchy-the high priests of science who fear to have their orthodoxy overthrown.
Vicious slanders and unprovoked attacks, he usually insists, are constantly being made against him. He likens himself to Bruno, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, and other great men who were unjustly persecuted for their heresies. If he has had no formal training in the field in which he works, he will attribute this persecution to a scientific masonry, unwilling to admit into its inner sanctums anyone who has not gone through the proper initiation rituals. He repeatedly calls your attention to important scientific discoveries made by laymen.
(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton. This same defiance can be seen in a tendency to assert the diametrical opposite of well-established beliefs.3 Mathematicians prove the angle cannot be trisected. So the crank trisects it. A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one. There are many eccentric theories in which the "pull" of gravity is replaced by a "push." Germs do not cause disease, some modern cranks insist. Disease produces the germs. Glasses do not help the eyes, said Dr. Bates. They make them worse. In our next chapter we shall learn how Cyrus Teed literally turned the entire cosmos inside-out, compressing it within the confines of a hollow earth, inhabited only on the inside.
(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined. Schizophrenics sometimes talk in what psychiatrists call "neologisms" -words which have meaning to the patient, but sound like Jabberwocky to everyone else. Many of the classics of crackpot science exhibit a neologistic tendency.
트랙백한 원 글의 저자가 과연 crank단계까지 갔는지는 잘 모르겠으나, 이미 자신의 분과학문의 가치를 몰라주는 세상에 대해 공공연한 분노를 터뜨리는 경향을 여러 글에서 보여주고 있다.
(저런 자연과학에 대한 짝사랑과는 달리, 사실
동료(?) 자연과학자들이 언어학이 자연과학에 들어가기에 합당한 자연과학적 연구방법론을 견지하고 있는지에 대해 폭넓은 인정을 하고 있는지도 또 하나의 관심거리다.)
나는 언어학에 관심이 없고, 그 바닥에서 뭘 지지고 볶든 별로 상관할 생각이 없다. 그러나
자연과학의 간판을 걸고 놀겠다고 나오면 이야기가 다르다. 그 자신의 분노가 이런 경우에는 해당 필자 자신에게 되돌려져야 함은 물론이다.