#25 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[olimcc20]

Is this entire third paragraph just referring to the perspective of the linguists? For example, in the latter half of the section in question, when it states, "...for every aspect of a phenomenon it is applied to, but some would argue, there is nothing inherent in mathematical language..." Is the "some would argue" still referring to the linguists?

Thanks!
Liv

#help

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, olimcc20! It's not entirely clear to me, even after reading it a few times, who those "some" people are. Is it the linguists, or is it scientists who have a view that is similar to the linguists? Or is it some other group of people who might think about things like this?

Ultimately, for the purpose of answering this question, it doesn't matter, because the purpose is still to illustrate the view of the linguists who hold that "the relationship between language and things is purely a matter of agreed-upon conventions, making knowledge tenuous, relative, and inexact." The author does that by explaining their position and using a discussion of the sciences as an example. Whose view is it? Doesn't matter. Why did the author include that view? To explain the view of those linguists.

[Catallus]

How does the application of some linguists' theory to science and math ("Certainly this characterization would seem applicable to the sciences") serve the purpose of elaborating those linguists' position? I was uncertain about (B), and leaned toward (E), because (B) seems only to address the first half of the paragraph, which definitely does elaborate the linguists' view, without addressing the second half, which connects/applies that view to mathematics, thus seemingly moving beyond the discussion of the linguists to address the author's own position. Further, regarding (E), why doesn't applying the linguists' viewpoint to mathematics serve the purpose of explaining the theory that math can be considered a language? Is it because the third paragraph is really about the "relationship between language and what it refers to" rather than the question of what makes math a language in the first place?