form

[Taka]

The sentence:

The very form of the adjective "scientific" might give pause to those who would force the word to cover such topics as the skill of boxer, or a knowledge of the theory and practice of the sacraments.

What exactly does "form" mean here?

[Tdol]

Your guess is as good as mine, I'm afraid.

[Taka]

Originally Posted by tdol

Your guess is as good as mine, I'm afraid.

You mean you don't understand it either?

I'm going to take a crack at this. :)

In the dictionary, one of the 16 definitions of form was

The essence of something.

I am going to assume that what the reader is trying to imply is that the essence of the word "scientific" should not be used to describe the workings of such things as the skill of a boxer or the practice of [religious] sacraments, as that is against the very nature (or form) of the word "scientific"

-Nah-

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Taka

The sentence:

The very form of the adjective "scientific" might give pause to those who would force the word to cover such topics as the skill of boxer, or a knowledge of the theory and practice of the sacraments.

What exactly does "form" mean here?

It means, shape/arrangement of parts and it's in reference to the suffix -ic, which means, characteristic of_______. Click Here

[Taka]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

It means, shape/arrangement of parts and it's in reference to the suffix -ic, which means, characteristic of_______. Click Here

I don't think your suffix analysis works, Cas.

Here is the entire paragraph:

Science is no static body of knowledge but rather an active process that can be followed through the ages. The sheer validity and success of the process in our own age has given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding of its nature and not a little misapplication of such terms as "science" and "scientific". We hear of the scientific methods of some prize-fighter, and a book has been published on the Science of the Sacraments. There is nothing in the laws of any country which forbids its citizens from giving to the words of their language such significance as the may choose, but science and scientific as employed in these connections have no relation to the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal. The very form of the adjective "scientific" might give pause to those who would force the word to cover such topics as the skill of boxer, or a knowledge of the theory and practice of the sacraments. By derivation scientific implies knowledge making, and no body of doctrine which is not growing, which is not actually in the making can long retain the attributes of science.

Nahualli's idea sounds interesting.

[Casiopea]

LOL! Taka, you must be tired or something today. :? Re-read the paragraph. 'form' refers to the adjectival us(ag)e of 'scientific'.

[Taka]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

LOL! Taka, you must be tired or something today. :? Re-read the paragraph. 'form' refers to the adjectival us(ag)e of 'scientific'.

I'm not tired at all, Cas. Or are you?

Read the paragraph carefully. The entire paragraph is saying that science is not an absolute, perfect thing, as the ordinal people would think. So whether it's "science (noun)" or "scientific (adjective)", we shouldn't misuse it; we just have to be careful about anything which is called "science" or "scientific". That's the whole message, I think. Therefore, I don't think the grammatical form as you pointed out really matters in this case.

Contextually, Nahualli's interpretation works a lot better, IMO.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Taka

Or are you?

Yawn. :wink:

[Taka]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Yawn. :wink:

Does "yawn" imply "Sorry, I was wrong." in your language?