chockfull

You know, you would be less of a tool if you weren't trying to act all high and mighty surrounding something that has simple definitions on the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof There are 3 definitions below this, and one points to the same Wikipedia reference to "Scientific Method" that I posted previously. You know, the article that contains definitions of hypothesis test, null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, and confidence intervals? Those terms which you don't have a clue about, to the extent you are saying "there is no such thing as sample space"???? We went through this exercise a couple pages ago, where I went back 4 pages out of 60 and provided AMPLE examples of you misusing "proof". I think during that exchange I challenged you to show ONE thing that WAS proven. You never have.

No, I understand burden of proof, I just disagree with you on what consists of "an affirmative claim". I started my discussion on this thread under the premise of disproving YOUR claim. You are trying to maneuver me into a corner of the "appeal to ignorance" logical fallacy, where you say if someone can't disprove it, then it's true. I don't make that claim. I'm not saying that. I have a nonstop campaign of presenting honesty related to this topic, and using accurate terms. Like not saying "proven" unless it is. Like pointing out issues with research. If you are not acting honestly in your use of the word "proven" then you ARE the target of this. That's your problem.

I seriously doubt you would have believed it even if you were there in the room.

You started the thread, you made the accusations that everyone SIT in modern day is faking it. That is the claim. Therefore by your logic it is your burden of proof to prove. Your tactics are to state as fact opinion, and lie about it to the point where you think people won't see through it. You are doing so here again. Where are SIT speakers making a claim here on this thread? Please point it out to all of the readers, including making the FIRST claim. I let you off the hook on that, saying that since the argument started long before this thread, it was unclear on who had the burden of proof - those stating that SIT is fake and false, or those saying it was genuine. Now you dishonestly are trying to frame the conversation so that you don't have a burden of proof which very clearly you are unable to meet. I see why you are doing it. Fear, knowledge that you can't prove it, not wanting to look bad. But it's still a dishonest approach. You mean how YOU shifted the burden of proof? Your affirmative claim "modern SIT doesn't produce a language". Your further affirmative claim "all those saying they are SIT in modern times are liars and are faking it. Look, not only does this place the burden of proof squarely on YOUR shoulders, but you are also being obnoxious. I didn't start out calling you a liar and a faker, it took about 60 pages of seeing you dishonestly state opinion as fact, to fill the thread with rhetoric, and summarily dismiss any of the opposite positions first-hand anecdotes, all which accepting without question those on your side. You are dishonest. You are lying. You have called people names since the beginning of the thread. I say your testimony of yourself tells the whole story. You lied about SIT while in TWI. And you are lying now about research. Nobody really made that big fat claim. For instance myself. I didn't come here, and start a thread how modern SIT is Biblical SIT. Pretty much to the charismatic Christians in the world, it's not something they NEED to make a claim about. They practice their faith in peace and quiet. For me, I got pulled into an argument by someone acting like a douche@g calling charismatic Christians names like liars and fakers. I got sick of it, so I decided to humor the conversation to see how full of it they were. I see they are plenty full of it, and won't listen to reason. What exactly is it about your behavior on this thread that makes you think you deserve ANYTHING from me? Name-calling and lies don't earn you anything. Yes, it's really clever to look at Wikipedia's definition of "the scientific method", whereby all peer reviewed scientific research papers are all evaluated against, and highlight some of the terms there involved with "proof". The reason I had to be so "clever" was Raf abusing the word "proof" all throughout the thread. Finally, I decided to call him on it. Apparently, since he is unable to show any measure of fact or use of the scientific method that is anywhere near what is used in sociological studies, psychological studies, and virtually all modern research, then he falls back on his next line of defense. Name-calling, and lies. "Cleverness". Wow. That's a new one. I never knew looking up a main term on Wikipedia was so "clever". Hahahaha. There is NO SUCH THING as a sample space. Do you think such a transparent lie is going to stand? A "sample space" is the entire population that you are trying to study. It differs from general population in that it is the entire population that you want to apply the hypothesis test to. The sample space is the pool from which you select your sample. Sample size is the number of samples you use in your study. And again, ignorance should not be mixed with stating opinion as fact. In hypothesis testing, YOU SELECT what the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are. And they equally could be selected to try and prove either side of the argument here. And ONE MORE TIME, where are the samples? Where is the writeup on them? Where is the statement of the hypothesis? Where are the numbers measured? Where is the mean, the standard deviation? Where is the confidence interval? But I'm OVERJOYED to see that we HAVE this information. I'm expecting to see you post up links to it within your next couple of posts. I just love it when we are now discussing PROOF in terms of "what is safer to assume". So you're admitting there is no proof here? And suggesting guidelines on what we should assume about it? Your arguments are so full of logical fallacies you couldn't see the truth if it hit you in the rear. Even your terminology is BS. I don't have "attacks" on research. I am simply asking to see evidence of PROOF that backs up their wild conclusions. I have yet to see any. All you have to do is provide the references to where we can all read it. I guess that's too hard, though. So instead you can just provide some ad hominem attacks on your opposition. I don't have a pity party going on. You are attacking me ad hominem on almost every post now. That's very apparent. That's your problem, not mine.

And without twisting history we can note that basically Paul said "all in Asia be turned away from me". Paul was martyred in somewhere around the 64AD - 70AD timeframes. There were a lot of things that disappeared from the church shortly after the detail of the first generation. That in and of itself should not be taken to be proof of any gifts subsiding, as it's fairly evident that by the 3rd century Christianity was politically influenced and the Pope had established power. There are a lot of ad hominem attacks on this thread. Mostly in an attempt to discredit research writings (someone was called a college student with a paper assignment I recall), and mostly to discredit. Raf subjects me to ad hominem attacks about every 3 posts, telling everyone how I'm dishonest, not interested in true research, etc. Usually the extent of the ad hominem attacks show me that I've presented Raf with something that he doesn't want to face, such as lack of systematic research, calling opinion as fact, etc.

You are both so full of it. What I stated was that the argument started long ago, so establishing which side has the burden of proof based upon rules is a moot point.

Look, for a while I was investigating doctrinal implications here. I never got an answer. My question was "since you claim modern SIT is not Biblical SIT, what changed?" I was looking for some scripture, historical event, etc. that would indicate at this time now you can't SIT any more like they did in Acts. I zero response on that from the people claiming that it's not the same. Oh, one person referred me to look up a commentary on a guy who explained it through dispensationalism or something. So it is completely logical to question that if somehow God can "turn off" the power to SIT all of a sudden, without warning, scripture, natural event, then who's to say that random occurance wouldn't also happen with miracles and other power from God? Look, there's been plenty of discussion on "modern SIT related to Biblical SIT" including a debate over what constitutes "proof". If you don't like the foray into doctrinal questions, then don't discuss them. There are separate threads in Doctrinal for doctrinal related to the verse, and research links. Some people want to discuss doctrinal implications on this thread. If it bothers you, then can you ignore it rather than just expecting everyone to cater to what you want to discuss only? Sure if you state it in that fashion it's flawed. But stated in another fashion, it's a legitimate question regarding the power of God. The other thing I find humorous is that whenever I bring up detailed challenges to research such as the last post, and point out what's the difference between good and shoddy research, rather than refute any of that, Raf takes the "I'm going to pick up my toys and go home" tactic. I guess he thinks maybe readers won't notice that. My bet is they do notice.

Raf, I think you're a tool with all your name-calling. Kisses. But you don't own the internet. And I think you're hilarious trying to use the word integrity along with your approach to this discussion. Regards, chockfull

geisha, I know that JAL video is a sample of some kind. I'm sorry, though, I just can't bear to look at it more than about 10 sec. After knowing that guy in TWI, and knowing about all the havoc he wreaked through the STFI stuff, seeing two failed marriages and another new snake oil group he's starting, I just can't watch him to even give it an honest effort to tell you what I think about whether it's genuine or fake. I hope we can find other samples.

Correct. Good point. We have a thread in doctrinal with links and summaries, but MANY of these studies are not on the internet in any form. This is true also. As a step towards proving your point conclusively, a study COULD state a hypothesis with a null and alternative hypothesis steps, select a sample space that represents the overall population, and measure the hypothesis statistically. Then numbers could be shown at the .05 level indicating a confidence interval of 95% that the hypothesis is true. I haven't seen such a study yet, but one could exist. While that would not prove your point conclusively (according to your accurate caveats above), it WOULD prove a confidence interval that would support a lot more conclusions. In a good study we would have audio / video bytes of the samples, as well as a short bio of the speakers involved including language background. You could also provide interviews with standard questions asked to all sample participants. I suggest that would be also what you would like to see out of any of the anecdotes brought up. At least interviews with standard questions, and a bio. I don't know if it's practical to have obtained audio/video of a miraculous event like someone understanding a tongue spoken. You can't rule this out if the researcher didn't provide access to their resources. Just like you can't rule out anecdotes. Or psychics. Or whatever. And it's not really objective to say "I believe the resources on one side of the argument without proof, but not the other". Or I can point out the difference between good research and what I see here. You've already rejected all the SIT anecdote claims anyway. I've approached the research into SIT as a valid subject of inquiry and review. I just have not seen in the research anything of substance to the point that saying it "proves" anything is a valid conclusion. Which is a shame, because if the linguists/researchers had adhered a little better to the scientific method in doing their research it would put us a lot farther along than where we are. The possibilities for discussion on this topic are 1)Research-based and 2) Doctrinal. You could attempt to answer questions raised on this thread via either approach.

No, someone was examine not "a phenomenon", they were examining "multiple phenomenon". This is easily ascertained by the fact they are even using two words to lump them together - glossolalia, and xenoglossia. The xeno word came from psychic studies. The glossa word came from the charismatic Christian movement. Then some rocket scientist decided to lump both together and make up a third word. "Free vocalization". So I decided that if there was one rocket scientist, there might as well be two. Thus I coined my term "free mouthnoiseization". Since I can decide to include as many different types of "phenomenon" into my definition, then since I made up the word, I can prove that it applies to all these phenomenon. I can even declare it an "innate human ability". See how much of a researcher I am? See how my hypothesis is clear? See how my sample space is really a defined group of people all with the same characteristics? No? Oh, well. It also helped that the person inventing the word DEFINED it to mean the same thing. And eliminated any areas where there might be a difference. You know, like first person vs. third person, two people having an imaginary conversation with themselves vs. praying, the context, etc. But it is complete horse puckey that the same people defining the term now use their definition to "prove" that the things they are covering by it are the same. This is called circular logic. We can examine those anecdotes to a certain extent. It doesn't mean you automatically accept them or reject them. But certainly there is no case for rejecting them summarily yet accepting the samples presented in research cases on faith - you have to have some kind of standard for acceptance of samples. And that should be evident to your audience when writing about it. You're the second person stating this. And I'll say the same thing to you. Please provide me ANY evidence this is true. What samples are there? What scientific method proving this? No, you are presenting that side of the argument as a strawman. That's not the correct argument. Same as yesterday. Free vocalization is a made up word encompassing older words glossolalia and xenoglossia, which studied different things - one was Christian, the other psychic. Basically I get the impression the linguist lumped everything together where someone was speaking a language not understood. I'm amazed at this too. I was amazed to see Raf state it in terms similar to that - it started out as Raf admitting he had faked it, to Raf calling out everyone that everyone faked it and lied to themselves, to looking at studies, to hyper-ventilating thinking the studies that didn't use the scientific method "proved" something, to a whole lot of name-calling and abusive language. I agree it damages the speakers credibility. They don't seem to be able to see this though.

That account has a footnote and a resource reference. So you should be able to go to the actual source for more information. I see more information there about the individual account than I see in any of Samarin's references to test subjects. I find it absolutely hilarious that you are talking about my gullibility in posting up accounts like this, but you find no problem in the fact that Samarin doesn't produce one single reference to any statistics in his studies, nor does he make public any of the test accounts or samples of anybody supposedly doing glossa that are the basis of his studies. So I can't check any of his sources to see if they are valid or not. I think more truthful is that a supernatural claim only needs to be MADE in order for dishonest researchers to attack it. So please explain to our dear readers why you attack the reference of a man in a Catholic mass coming up and trying to speak Persian to the person who SIT, but give researchers a pass when they don't provide individual account references in their studies? And I mean an explanation beyond the "innate human ability" of stupidity?

It's certainly possible. However, it is no reason to take a whole category of claims (psychic, séance related, medium talking to spirit guide) and automatically assume that all of them are faking and so they all fit under a pet term called "free vocalization", call it an "innate human ability", immediately assume that they are doing the exact same thing as Christians SIT, and draw conclusions about them together. That's shoddy research. Again, it's just probability thinking. Like for instance, the probability you are being a jerk right now is about 86.5%.

I will say that excie's advice is good here. AA / NA can be problematic for people in that diseased people who aren't 100% committed to beating the disease can use these groups are a resource for networking to get drugs (NA) or relapse together. I saw more of that related to NA as it's easy to obtain booze anywhere, but not drugs. People were using NA to network for dealers. Other complicit problems are things like I think the slang term is "13 stepping" indicating a mentor or sponsor abusing their status in the group to have sex with an addict. That's the same problem we saw in the ministry with people abusing that position. I still think overall it is an easier route going to recovery with others help sharing your struggles than trying to go it alone in a society that doesn't care.

I did the homework. I couldn't find those terms one time in any of the studies we referenced. I saw no statistics from any research. I saw no numbers, no hypothesis stated in a structured fashion (as the scientific method states to do - null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis). I saw no evidence of the hypothesis changing over different iterations of the experiment like I do with valid scientific studies that actually prove something. I'm not changing terms of the debate. I'm asking you to supply evidence that your overuse of the word "proven" is warranted in any fashion. You are presenting studies in the thread, and using the word "proven" time after time in conjunction with them. Obviously you feel the studies have "proven" something. So let's see the beef here. If you can't do this, expressed in many ways including name-calling, logical fallacy appeals, saying "I'm not doing this", saying it's a "waste of time" or whatever other turns you might do logically to escape from your previous attestations, I am going to be forced to conclude that when you use the word "proven" you are completely talking out your @$$ and also by this point in the conversation you know enough about it to be lying about it.

Just like I'm sure they can look up easily the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis in all of Samarin and Poythress's studies referenced here. And I'm sure they can find a representation of all of these samples Samarin is referring to. Along with the statistical numbers, like mean and standard deviation. Go ahead everyone reading the thread (or the two that still click on the new post button in spite of their better judgement that are left). Find those terms in the studies. Since my point is such a flipping joke anyone following along can see it. Look, you are the one with the vocabulary word "proven" spotting up this thread like diarrhea. This should be easy for you. Why the reluctance?

You're right. You are operating on "proof" that is vastly different than what I mean, and what the term means when you introduce the scientific method. You mean "it's an educated guy in the field that presents his opinion". I mean "scientific method". Here - read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Note the terms for hypothesis, null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis. Then, if you can, point out one such statement in Samarin's study. I couldn't find one. But hey, as you state, maybe I'm twisting his work, interpreting it wrong, am completely dishonest, and all the other namecalling words you are so adept at. All I want is one example where the person who stated a conclusion has it supported by evidence. And evidence meaning here's a sample, here's a hypothesis test, here's the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, and here are statistical numbers that you can check to verify that they used the scientific method correctly and are not just spouting opinion out of their @$$. Just one example. That shouldn't be so hard. Because of a lack of the scientific method in these studies, THEY CAN'T BE VERIFIED, and more importantly, THE HYPOTHESIS CANNOT BE MODIFIED THROUGH ANALYSIS. This is the normal process of PROVING THINGS. If a hypothesis cannot be modified, because it was never stated in a scientific fashion along with its null and alternative, then another scientist or linguist can't come along and verify or improve on your work. Thus the value of the whole effort involves is NIL.

The debatable conclusion to me on that topic is whether or not an "accent" in speaking another language (like Texican Spanish for example) would account for minor variations or vocabulary possibilities in like consonant selection or not. I saw Samarin try to prove that, then concede that his consonant tree would also hold true for six other languages. Not really. I believe no linguist has understood the tongue natively in a setting yet. Or heard a language they were familiar with. And there are a lot of living and dead languages. The incompetence I see from the linguists stems from inability to define spiritual sources, and issues with their stats methods. And I'm still saying we are getting nowhere with the proof side of this. There is inability to prove either side. And so conclusions from attempts to do so are disingenuous at best, hypocritical and lying at worst with full understanding of it. Look I can't even agree in peace with the definition of "free vocalization" as a meaningful term at all. It encompasses SIT (maybe if it ever WAS experienced in a lab), faking, and conversations between a medium and their spirit guide. If this is an innate human ability, it is an innate human ability in the sense of how being stupid is an innate human ability. It means nothing. Just like the term I made up to illustrate that point. I agree it's not worth debating, but for an entirely different reason. Well, Samarin proved nothing, and had tons of opinionated conclusions. That were opinion. So saying he proved something is BS. Or show me the hypothesis test and all the numbers.

Well, I said what I believe about it above. As far as instruction from the Bible, I would be at a complete loss as to how to explain it to you guys scripturally like instructing on how to do it. I mean I don't see how I could and avoid all the tentacles of TWI doctrine on it, which would probably sour the experience to everyone. We need to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees, not start another splinter ministry that can produce 80% counterfeits of Wierwille's ministry. Or stated this way, I think it occurs naturally to believers in prayer. So a snake oil salesman sold us SIT as a snake oil remedy. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen. Here's something you can do that will cure all your ailments. If you have a bad foot, SIT. Cavity, SIT. Lack of sleep, SIT. You don't even need sleep if you SIT, as it builds up your inner man. You won't get sick if you SIT. Problems in your marriage? Don't talk to your spouse, just SIT. Challenges at work? SIT. With relationships with your boss? SIT. All you have to do is SIT to make sure you're spiritually big and strong. Then you'll be able to lift huge miracles with your little pinky, just like Ah-nold. No, a better approach would be to state that SIT replaces NOTHING, except for maybe a little of your time praying with your understanding. It's a token, it's a down payment on a better future. It's a little taste of a connection by spirit now that all of life will be based on when Jesus comes back. It's what God left in place of the ashes of a water-soaked offering to Baal. Is this all opinion as it pertains to the scientific method and statistical analysis? Sure it is. Or it's speaking what's in my heart on the topic, from study, knowledge, practice, experience. It's what I've got to share.

I don't immediately assume the claims to be true. I just think it highly likely that a medium who says they are talking to a spirit guide, who has others observe voice and accent changes during a séance, probably is. Unless he is also a ventriloquist. Then he's probably not. My discussion of "proof" is always couched in the current tools we have to use in our day and time. These are the statistical tools of math that are used in the scientific method and (many times) involve hypothesis testing (the official technical stats definition). In hypothesis testing "proof" is described in terms of what is called a "confidence interval". Scientists select the "confidence interval" with which they can prove something (usually 95% or 90%). This also is described in terms of "standard deviation". I had one stats teacher in college that would every day bring in a statistical study from current news, and comment on the mathematical accuracy of it or the issues with it. I think in one semester I saw a representation of 2 or 3 only that she said was completely mathematically accurate. I would say about 60% or even 70% of the cases she examined there were problems with the sample space being pointed out. Those methods are used today to prove studies in the softer sciences like psychology or sociology. Also, for the FDA in drug approval. What do I mean by all of that? That 100% proof doesn't happen. 95% proof happens as the most common measure. And even with 95% proof, you're not really certain, you just have a certain confidence interval with the data given. So I tend to look at accounts and individual records with a view towards what type of confidence I could have in asserting their story, fact, presentation. In this discussion I find more than the normal amount of problem with studies. Terms are defined such that opposite spectrum experiences are defined under the same descriptive term, and then that is called an "innate human ability", which circularly defines the term with the outcome you are looking for. I see proving your side as next to impossible as you have to prove a negative that the tongue sample for every person taken has never been understood at any time on Earth. Proving the positive or my side is so much easier, but all it would require is God consuming an offering with fire like against the prophets of Baal in the Old Testament, and I have verses where Jesus describes of people asking "what sign is given that this is true?" and him answering that he was the only sign they'd ever see. So I don't think we have or are going to get very far proving anything. And that's why it really gets me bent when you falsely claim things to be proven.

Well, see if he brings it up in the book you ordered. And please post quotes. I didn't get the read that the actual conversation was recorded, just Le Baron talking about it. Which would more support him faking it than if the conversation itself was recorded. I'll read over it again and see if I can find and online reference. I found it in the library. On xenoglossia, I still can't get past the definition. I've read about 4 contradictory ones now, including the first reference which was in conjunction with automatic writing. That first reference has really nothing at all to do with SIT, so I'm not really sure what to do with that term. Look, this spiritual stuff - and proving it. I see it proven in my life on a consistent basis. I can't prove it to you, and IMO that's for the same reason God isn't going to come down in flames and consume an offering the prophets of Baal have water soaked. It's A.D. not B.C. meaning "after the death of Jesus", not "Before Christ". But yes, in terms of our public conversation, that would be as you state presenting my opinion as fact. Well if TWI was instructing you how to tie your shoes it wouldn't surprise me to see your right ankle being worn around your left ear. And because of the controversy we are highlighting I would not recommend to send you to another human being on the face of the earth for instruction on this. So in my opinion, this is to be worked out between an individual believer and God. Pray. Ask about it. Read. Study. And if you find yourself one day where your prayer life takes a turn that's different, maybe try it rather than immediately ruling it out or associating it with TWI doctrine. If you feel like singing when praying, sing. Or dancing. Or punching a heavy bag with mitts. Or throwing back your shoulders and screaming loud outside with nobody around. Or crying. Or yelling at God. Will all of that get you to SIT? I don't know. But IMO SIT is just a prayer thing. No more. No less. Just develop a relationship, and be a human. That's more important than speaking perfect words of praise in high Klingon ever will be.

And when you're a liar, I guess you keep lying no matter what. I guess it's not really a surprise to me that people who lied about SIT when they were in TWI are now lying about it not being available.

Why do people have such a vested interest in stating publicly that they used to be a fake, but now they aren't and that you should really, really believe them? And they still do follow. Jesus isn't dead.

No, the difference between you and I is when someone claims to have operated the power of God, my reaction is to hear the story to investigate the detail of it. Your reaction - "I don't believe it, unless it took place in a lab with a known scientist and the people involved are available in perpetuity for questioning about their account and background". I mean there was a time in Bible history where God put up with people needing to see proof of the miraculous before believing Him. He accommodated Elijah and the prophets of Baal bringing down fire to consume a waterlogged offering. But when Jesus Christ came, that changed. He was the sign. And he told others signs that would follow them that believed in him.

Yeah - so many like this. I mean I never knew I cared whether Jesus died on a Wednesday or Friday, whether he carried his own cross or not, whether 2 or 4 were crucified with him. I mean I never cared so much how he died, more I cared that I could live through Him. I never really cared that much about the mechanics of prayer either. I just cared that I could talk to my Father through JC, and feel loved by Him and answered by him. Then I heard all sorts of BS and was force-fed a formulaic approach for being happy with my prayer life in TWI. Now I've got people dedicated to proving to me how I'm a faker and have been for decades because what I read in the Bible I could do they say isn't possible today. I mean I love God. And He loves me, just like a little child. People though, they really suck.