Raf

Limb introduces an interesting word we can apply to our discussion as an alternative to free vocalization (which is a perfectly acceptable term in my view but seems to create conniption fits in other(s?). Innovation. The human brain is an innovative machine. A musician who innovates a sequence of notes AS he is playing, no pre-planning, isn't automatically believed to be under spiritual influence. What we've been referring to as "free vocalization" can also be described as a kind of vocal innovation: bringing forth a series of sounds with no cognitive pattern. With a piano, we call it improv. I hope I don't have to prove that the brain is capable of improvisation. I really hope I don't have to prove that. Let's see if anyone else uses the term "improvisation" or a variation of it while discussing SIT. I'll be gosh darned: http://www.christianity-guide.com/christianity/glossolalia.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=UjUulaAocmoC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=glossolalia+improvisation+Samarin&source=bl&ots=Jj6bGZWK9c&sig=Ag_MNnnTCu4K9TrwBh54YSqbGq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_IaSUKiZBYjYywHAz4G4Aw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=glossolalia%20improvisation%20Samarin&f=false That's all I could find in a few short minutes, and I had to dig for them. What I would likely do next is hunt down any differences between free vocalization (as defined in Poythress and used on this thread) and vocal improvisation, free improvisation, vocal innovation and other such words. Not sure the overlap is 100%, but willing to be it's significant.

Limb introduces an interesting word we can apply to our discussion as an alternative to free vocalization (which is a perfectly acceptable term in my view but seems to create conniption fits in other(s?). Innovation. The human brain is an innovative machine. A musician who innovates a sequence of notes AS he is playing, no pre-planning, isn't automatically believed to be under spiritual influence. What we've been referring to as "free vocalization" can also be described as a kind of vocal innovation: bringing forth a series of sounds with no cognitive pattern. With a piano, we call it improv. I hope I don't have to prove that the brain is capable of improvisation. I really hope I don't have to prove that. Let's see if anyone else uses the term "improvisation" or a variation of it while discussing SIT. I'll be gosh darned: http://www.christianity-guide.com/christianity/glossolalia.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=UjUulaAocmoC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=glossolalia+improvisation+Samarin&source=bl&ots=Jj6bGZWK9c&sig=Ag_MNnnTCu4K9TrwBh54YSqbGq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_IaSUKiZBYjYywHAz4G4Aw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=glossolalia%20improvisation%20Samarin&f=false That's all I could find in a few short minutes, and I had to dig for them. What I would likely do next is hunt down any differences between free vocalization (as defined in Poythress and used on this thread) and vocal improvisation, free improvisation, vocal innovation and other such words. Not sure the overlap is 100%, but willing to be it's significant.

Hmm. A decent summary of the raw data. Some really good analysis of the psychoanalytic history of glossolalia (much of it reflecting the issues I just raised in going over his hypotheses. Well done). First hypothesis predicted a decrease in frontal lobe activity from singing (with the understanding) to glossolalia. That prediction was validated (big shock. Speaking with the understanding uses the frontal lobe. Speaking without it does not). What distinguishes it from non-spiritual fakery? The study doesn't consider that question. (Can I say free vocalization again? Or is that going to get challenged every time I bring it up?) Second hypothesis predicted a difference between glossolalia and meditation. That difference was confirmed. I'm confident that if he had sought a difference between glossolalia and a monastic intonation of the Lord's Prayer, he would have found that too. This should surprise no one. Third hypothesis predicted an increase in thalamic activity based on SIT being a "highly active state." This was not confirmed. He goes into some detail about what he DID find, and there's a bit more work to be done. But interesting that I found a problem with the hypothesis as it was stated, and that he evidently failed to confirm the hypothesis, no? I may have overstated that last line. You really need to read it in the original. And the last hypothesis did confirm an increased emotional state. But that could very well be because the subjects were emotional. I'm sure five TWI followers at their third fellowship of the day might have shown different results. But whatever. *** So what do we learn, definitively, from Newberg? Well, it does appear that when you're speaking in tongues, you're not pre-thinking the sounds coming out. Duh. No one said we were. This study says NOTHING about fakery, nothing about distinguishing between an actual lack of control and a perceived lack of control (whatever either term means). You know what would have been interesting? Brain scans of people interpreting and prophesying, and comparing it to those same people discussing the Word or merely praising God with their understanding, extemporaneously, no pre-planning involved. I wonder if there would be decreased frontal lobe activity then? And if so, what would it prove? My overall point is that Newberg's study is interesting, but hardly applicable to the subject we're discussing. I made that observation earlier based on news accounts, and now, with his actual study in hand, I repeat that observation.

Interesting observation. Directly contradicted by our experience. He makes a casual observation about the phonemic structure of the glossolalia, pretty much matching Samarin (and any other respectful observer). We've already noted on this thread that phonemic structure proves nothing more than the fact that the person speaks, pauses, stops, etc., just like we do when we're speaking our native language. To paraphrase another poster's review of another study: Duh. Now, onto the good stuff...

I'm looking over the Newberg paper to see if he addresses any of the issues I raised when we reviewed the same study (we already did this, oodles of pages ago) off news accounts. After all, who trusts the media to get it right? We have a peer-reviewed research paper here! The first thing that amused me is that the very first expert he cited in connection with glossolalia was Samarin. I wonder if he knows what a shoddy researcher Samarin was. He should have relied on Landry! Next thing to note is that none of the hypotheses Newberg tested involved any comparison of genuine SIT to admitted fakery. He lists his hypotheses at the end of page one and beginning of page two. In his first hypothesis, he takes for granted that there is a loss of intentional control. Depending on exactly what he means by that, it could be problematic. TWI's version of SIT did not involve a "loss of control" per se, but it did involve a surrender of control over the specific string of sounds uttered (the Sspirit gives the utterance, we control the body). So "loss of intentional control" might be a sound presumption, if that's what Newberg means. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to proceed without worrying too much about whether that wording poses a problem. Hypothesis 2: He expects glossolalia to demonstrate different mental changes compared to meditation. I don't see why this would not be the case. They're very different activities, in enough ways to expect a different outcome. No problem there. Hypothesis 3: He calls SIT "a highly active state." Again, we have a potential terminology issue. I don't think SIT as practiced in TWI can be described by a layman as "highly active." But maybe Newberg's definition is different from a layman's. We proceed, as in hypothesis 1, with some concern, but not nearly enough to dismiss the results. Hypothesis 4: He calls SIT "a very emotional state." In three of the four hypotheses, Newberg describes SIT in terms that, as laypeople, we can all directly challenge, if not contradict. Again, what does he mean by emotional? What does he mean by very emotional? Would he have had different results if all his study subjects were TWI glossolalists? I don't know. I'm inclined to believe he could. But I'm also inclined to believe it could not affect his test results. It could go either way. "Emotional" can mean different things to different people. It's hard to measure. Newberg acknowledges this. By the way... so does Samarin. To summarize: In none of Newberg's hypotheses do we see any attempt to validate or invalidate SIT. We merely see attempts to describe it and to see what it looks like to the brain performing it. Fair enough. Let's go!

So wait: a rational and honest train of thought is not pursued in part because no one around you is pursuing it, so you accept something you question in your gut that you might otherwise have challenged? Why, one might call it socially reinforced self-delusion. But Wierwille could never get away with that. Not without laying some groundwork first. Naaaaah.

Oh no! Not my Warn Status! Will that go on my permanent record? I'll never get into Morgan Prep now. My mom's gonna be soooo mad. *** Editing instead of a new post: Incidentally, I became a mod in 2006, LONG after GS started and, if I'm not mistaken, some time after the Mike wars. My specific purpose was making sure the site didn't run afoul of copyright and plagiarism laws and rules. Not a lawyer, but tried to develop a site policy that allows us to quote sources without going overboard and pasting entire articles. I did try moderating a few politics threads at one point, but really struggled between participating and observing, so I ended up withdrawing from both: I stopped posting in politics, stopped moderating there, and haven't looked back. I do not recall the last time I moderated anything before the last couple of months. There was a request for assistance with a few lengthy quotes, and I stepped in and moderated those in rather clear accordance with the fair use policy (still pinned to the top of the Open Forum) even though I blew my stack against the same poster as Raf. I did that with the full knowledge of other mods. Any one of us could have done it, but it was a specific infraction on unrelated threads that had nothing to do with our argument and was as clear a violation of a published policy as anyone could imagine. It was modcat5's turf. This is the only time I've "abused" mod authority, and I have repeatedly said I think most people would agree with the decision to lock down the thread temporarily -- if another mod had done it. The conflict of interest was glaring and acting on my own was a colossal blunder. I continue to think if you separate the action from the actor, you can't really argue with the lockdown. In fact, a fair case can be made that it was long overdue. My thanks to all, especially Chockfull, for understanding and putting it in perspective. And to the other mods: it won't happen again.

Ok, things are a lot more calm than they were 24 hours ago. Thank you all. I keep saying I've run out of patience, and I keep allowing myself to get drawn back in to answer just one more thing. But the just one more thing is invariably something that's already been answered. We're now just finding new ways to answer the same old questions, rehashed, repackaged, and most certainly reheated. In the most recent substantive post, chockfull asks a bunch of questions and makes a bunch of the same old accusations. At one point this argument was moving in circles. Which, I guess, is fine if you like merry go rounds. Now I get the sense we are not moving at all. It's not a constructive use of anyone's time. Please, it's not that I can't refute the last post. It's that on the majority of points made, I've already addressed or refuted them. Just because the questions keep getting asked doesn't mean they haven't been answered. I submit neither of us will persuade another person either way. So, ok. God won't participate in a satanic study. The linguists are incompetent. They don't know a devil spirit from the holy spirit. Free vocalization doesn't exist. The term "innate human ability" doesn't matter. Stating an opinion as fact is a bad, bad thing. When Raf does it. Perfectly ok when Chockfull does. Samarin was an incompetent hack who conducted shoddy research that gets quoted as an authority on the subject by everyone studying glossolalia to this day. Shoddy shoddy shoddy. But Matthew C. Landry, a geologist who was a college student minoring in religious studies when he wrote a class paper that clearly took sides on the issue and was more biased than a Rush Limbaugh radio program, a paper that quoted Samarin so far out of context it made Samarin look like he was saying the 180 degrees opposite of what we know he concludes-- Landry deserves protection from any criticism. Noting that he was a college student is an ad hominem attack. Renouncing Samarin's findings because he's not born again is not an ad hominem attack. No, that's spiritually astute. You know what? Enough. It is impossible to argue with someone when the common ground shifts every 5-10 posts. No mas. I've said my peace. I've presented the only evidence I have access to at this time. If I learn more, I'll present more. But to paraphrase the Monty Python crew, we haven't been having an argument. We've just been having contradictions. No, we haven't? Yes, we have. Count me out. Peace.

You misread my post. I know, shocking, right? Here, let me use smaller words. You keep saying, as fact, that Samarin had languages in front of him but failed to detect them. This is not a fact. It is your speculation. I am not obliged to account for your speculation. And what is it about "a glossa is never a human language" that you don't understand? Last thing for the night: are we going to just act like this is the first time anyone's mentioned Newberg's study, like we never demonstrated why it doesn't address this thread like dozens of pages ago? Because I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends. Newberg did not consider the question of fakery. Does the frontal lobe activity of a person faking it look any different from a person doing it for real? Can those differences, if they exist, be accounted for by intent of the speaker ( the emotions would presumably be different). Can one person be compared to another? Or can a subject only be compared to himself during a different activity. Newberg's study IS interesting. But it doesn't address the first thing about this thread. Nor, I suspect, can it. I think I know how much I'm going to need to post tomorrow.

Halloween. See you guys tomorrow. Will decide then how much of Chockfull's latest post is safe to answer. Will try to limit myself to not rehashing. By the way, I've lost count of the number of times he stated his opinion (Samarin failed to recognize languages, for which Chockfull has ZERO evidence) as fact. Considering that he's been ripping me to shreds and whining about it every other post, I think I am entitled to point out the continued hypocrisy.

Ok, I must have a bad connection. Not seeing how Newberg relates to Chockfull's point.

If AHAT wants to jump in, I'll put my clue on hold. We skipped his turn earlier this week.

This thread was quickly derailed and no longer seems to be reflecting what Socks intended. Socks, how would you like to handle it?

Traxx Shadoe Stevens just kidding. Anna Chancellor. :huh:

Considering all else, very kind of you to say.

Heh heh heh. Superman II

I don't see why not. A lot of edits in post 1430 between the time I first posted and now. If anyone read before, it might behoove you to read again.

We have a winner! Tony Stark gets thrown in prison because he too closely resembles Louis XIV. He's rescued by the Three Musketeers. Um, Four Musketeers.

I'm not sure where Chockfull stands on free vocalization as an innate human ability at this point. My last two posts were written on the assumption that he is finding a more sensible position here. I still think he's making a mistake assuming the non-Christian xenoglossia described by Samarin to be true, when in reality Samarin appears to be calling them all out as faked BS. Just because I SAY I got a message from my spirit guide and it was in Middle English, doesn't mean I did, and doesn't mean it was Middle English. In fact, if you KNOW Middle English and are able to determine that my utterance was NOT Middle English, you would have the only testable indication available that the first half of my story, that I got this utterance from my spirit guide, was horse manure. Albert Le Baron's story is horse manure. No one should be upset that a person who pretended to get a message from his spirit guide turned out to be a fraud. In fact, I would venture to say the opposite is true: we're on firm ground EXPECTING such horse manure to be horse manure. Not to dismiss it out of hand, but at least wait for proof and recognize proof to the contrary when you see it. (And when he gives you a language to check, you check, and it ain't that language, that's not just evidence. That's proof). I have no problem lumping faked mediums, faked SIT and real free vocalization into the same linguistic category (the last one being a natural explanation and the first two being attempts to portray that natural explanation as something it is not). But the very possibility of this appears to upset Chockfull so much that he is more willing to dispense with the true, documentable and self-evident reality of free vocalization rather than the phony, unproved and evidence-free UNreality of faked SIT and xenoglossia. And I deliberately used faked SIT in that previous paragraph to distinguish it from real SIT, which, if it exists, doesn't seem to be showing up in any of these studies.

As long as you do not include all SIT or all alleged demonstrations of spiritual power in the definition of ” all its forms,” I don't see why anyone would object.

Socks asked for outlandish stories. Read the flipping opening post. ;)

I agree. I stand by what I did last night. I do not stand by my decision to do it myself instead of waiting for someone else. I agree. Sentence one: thank you. Sentence two: thank you, but I'm not sure I agree. I would not argue with mod status being revoked for that infraction. Up to the rest of the mods. Sentence three: I have reported posts when I felt it necessary, just as any other participant would. And I have left it to other mods to take appropriate action. But my threshold for revocation of mod status is lower than yours. So yes, you would be completely justified in calling for such a thing and grounds a lot less severe than what you describe, in my opinion.

The scientific method, as you have cited it, applies when you are testing a hypothesis. It does not apply to classification (unless you want to break it down into microsteps, in which case the scientific method is applied at every step. But I don't think that's what you meant). If you have a leaf or a berry and don't know what kind of tree or bush it fell from, you look at the characteristics of the leaf you DO have and you compare it to the leaves and berries from known trees and bushes. Boring when you're talking about maple leaves. A little more interesting when you're talking about poison ivy. And vital when you're thinking of eating that berry you just picked up in the Alaskan wilderness (see: Into the Wild). You don't want a reasonable confidence interval that the berry is not poisonous. You want Certainty that it is not. Classification CAN and DOES prove identification, all the time. It's not a case of mixed-and-matched terminology to suggest something is proved just because the scientific method of hypothesis testing was not explicitly employed to properly classify the unknown item you are seeking to identify. If I have 95% confidence that a berry I found in the woods is not poisonous, I'm not eating it. 99%, maybe, if the only other alternative is starving. But rest assured: every step involved in classifying an unknown item utilizes the scientific method, just on a smaller scale than what you describe (If it's a maple leaf, it should look nothing like a pine needle. Hey! It looks just like a pine needle! It's not a maple leaf. Boom: next hypothesis). Listen, we can remove "this is proven" from this conversation the moment you stop falsely accusing me of misapplying such an assertion. I haven't done it. Stop saying I have. I have an opinion that I have, from time to time, stated as fact (as you have as well, as anyone in a discussion involving disagreement is wont to do). I have never said that opinion was proven. You need to get over that. Look it up: in NONE of the examples you cited of me expressing my opinion as fact did I ever refer to that opinion as proved. Correct in theory. We're just looking for the one case where they are able to make a match. THIS is an honest question. Kudos. Once you start using phonemes, it's not hard to narrow down the list of available languages. Take the CH sound in Channukah. There are oodles of languages in which that phoneme does not exist. You can rule them out. The phonemic structure narrows down the potential list of languages to match against. Ultimately, you're down to a few where the utterance can be tested against the actual language. The researchers never seen to get this far. They keep coming back to the primary language of the speaker, with maybe a few extra phonemes thrown in and accounted for by the speaker's exposure to other languages. Yes, the phonemic strata of English does match other languages. But not so many that it is impossible to check. If English and, say, Esperanto are a phonetic match, and the sample matches both phonemically, you just need to check the utterance against those languages for which there IS a match. So far, no luck. We have a description of one case that does not fit this model. It was rejected as a language, but on what grounds? I want it to be rejected as a language. I am reassured to some degree that the researcher did so. But I don't know his basis. He has given me reason to think he erred. Need more input. More data will determine whether that one case proves me wrong or fails to prove me wrong. Nothing can prove me right. Nothing can ever prove a null hypothesis right, and THIS subject doesn't lend itself to the kind of testing you described earlier, for reasons stated. By the way, re-read page 56 of Samarin. It doesn't answer your question in its entirety, but it gives you some indication that the community of linguists is a shade more confident of its ability to detect languages than you are.

Respectfully, when you reject free vocalization as an innate human ability, then you deny the human ability to "(make) up sounds that could sound a little more like language." Because that is a big part of what free vocalization IS. So if you're saying now that SIT can be faked with no spiritual implications, we are back on common ground and can continue the discussion on logical terms. But that is NOT what you said before. The problem you're having is that you're doing exactly what you accuse US of doing: using circular reasoning to affirm that the utterances which are CLAIMED to be spirit-energized really ARE spirit-energized, then blasting the researchers for not being able to tell their output apart. It's rational and likely that the researchers can't tell the output apart because there's no difference in the output. Now, if one of these things were producing a known language, THAT would be a different output. But to get angry because Samarin can't tell an alleged case of xenoglossia from an alleged case of glossolalia? Rather than think both of them are faking it by free vocalizing, your default presumption is Samarin can't tell a devil spirit from a holy spirit and free vocalization is merely a label applied to his failure? That's ridiculous. Samarin is looking at the output. He's TOLD there's a distinction. He sees none. Ya think it's remotely possible it might maybe be because there is none? A. Human beings are capable of stringing sounds together and, consciously or not, trying to make them sound like languages. That is an independent fact which you have basically just acknowledged. B. Human beings claim to SIT. The spiritual energy behind it cannot be tested. The output can. There is nothing in the output that distinguishes it from free vocalization linguistically (Poythress). C. Human beings have claimed xenoglossia through non-Christian means. The spiritual energy behind it cannot be tested. The output can. The opinion of the linguist we are reviewing fails to find any distinction between those utterances and SIT (Samarin), and SIT produces nothing that distinguishes it from free vocalization (Poythress). This proves nothing. It merely demonstrates that to the extent we are able to review actual samples, they're all producing the same thing, linguistically. In other words, the concept (not the term) of free vocalization is a natural phenomenon, nothing extraordinary about it, that appears to account for the tested claims of glossolalia and a couple of tested claims of non-Christian xenoglossia. No one has put forth the hypothesis that all non-Christian xenoglossia is free vocalization. I'd be willing to bet that's true, but I'm having enough trouble with glossolalia, thank you very much. It's not that free vocalization was coined in order to lump these things under one umbrella. Rather, the properties of these different phenomena, recognized as producing the same result, were labeled by Poythress in the terms of their least common denominator: free vocalization as an innate human ability. Poythress did not equate SIT and free vocalization. I did that. That's my hypothesis. It is not proved. I never said it was. I have said that the research has failed to find linguistic distinctions between SIT and free vocalization (which Poythress almost reluctantly admits), and pointed to that as evidence in support of my hypothesis (which Poythress most certainly does not concede). But that's not the same thing as me saying "I proved it! I proved it!" I can't prove it. I've said that from the beginning. Poythress further subdivides free vocalization into separate categories. The only observable distinction between SIT (which he calls T-Speech) and competent (and spirit-free) free vocalization is the setting in which it is produced. It's not a measurement of a difference in output. It's an acknowledgment of a difference in location and mentality of input. He could not point to a difference in output, and only suggests the difference may exist, undetectably, on theological grounds. He leaves science when he makes such an assertion. He's writing an article on faith for a theological publication, so he's entitled to do that. But when he does, he leaves the realm of science and detached, unbiased observation. That's why I originally labeled Poythress "ridiculously biased." That was unfair on my part, because I assumed this was a work of unbiased research rather than a work of theological interpretation. As a work of theological interpretation, Poythress' paper is quite UNbiased. It refuses to equate two phenomena when all observable indicators point to (not PROVE, point to) their equality. Does the lack of a linguistic distinction between some cases of xenoglossia (not reviewed separately as a subject in this thread) and free vocalization mean there's no such thing as devil spirits? No. It only means that Le Baron LIED when he claimed to produce a known, human language. He did no such thing. When his output was analyzed, it was determined to NOT be a known, human language (Samarin). It should be noted that Samarin did not review a summary of the Le Baron story. He reviewed the actual output. (Read the flipping report). Samarin DID review a summary of another story of non-Christian xenoglossia. And he couched his finding there in terms that should be acceptable to all of us: "In addition to speaking and writing in two 'languages,' using a non-Roman orthography of her invention, while in a trance state, she also produced utterances in circumstances too involved to describe here which, if we understand the investigator's description of them, were glossolalic. [emphasis mine]" In other words, it does not appear Samarin actually investigated what "Helene Smith" wrote. He's giving us a conclusion based on what he DOES know. But he gives himself wiggle room there. If Helene Smith DID produce a language, it only means Samarin didn't see enough evidence. If such evidence was provided, Samarin would be forced to withdraw the conclusion of the last line and concede that what she did was different from glossolalia. You are free to reject Samarin's finding that Smith's utterance was glossolalic. But you can only move it, based on the evidence, to "inconclusive." You cannot argue that she produced xenoglossia merely on her say-so. Psychic fraud was RAMPANT in the late 1800s and the early 1900s (about the time modern SIT was "born," and not coincidentally, in my opinion). It remains rampant today. There's just more people calling BS today. I think Samarin's conclusion was probably correct, but I would be forced based on the limited information available to agree that it's inconclusive. It sure as hell isn't a genuine demonstration of devil-spirit power until otherwise proved! A clever and detailed fraud is still a fraud. The point is this: demonstrations of spiritual power that are empirically testable are not true until disproved. They are not untrue until proved. They are undetermined until proved one way or another. When a natural explanation exists to explain an alleged case of a demonstration of spiritual power, there is no rational reason to reject the natural explanation. There is a rational reason to reject free vocalization as a natural explanation for SIT if SIT were to produce known human languages. But it hasn't. Not according to the findings of the linguists. You may speculate that the linguists missed a spot, but it's on natural terms. They are imperfect and capable of making mistakes. It is silly to accuse them of being unable to distinguish between demonic power and genuinely godly power when they see no evidence of ANY spiritual power whatsoever. They see free vocalization, a natural, human ability that does exist, sounds like language, but fails to match the phonemic strata of any known language. Again, you may challenge the ability of linguists to identify and record phonemes because of aspirated or unaspirated "p's", which would lead to their failure to accurately classify a language they should otherwise have been able to detect. That is a natural, rational challenge to their findings. It has no basis. That is, you are not proving that they missed a language. You are, rather, speculating: suggesting that it remains entirely possible that they missed a language. No spiritual shenanigans or failure because they're not born again. Please. We're talking about empirical claims. If I'm producing a human language, I'm doing so whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu or atheist. Is it possible Samarin missed a language? Sure it's possible. More than one? Possible, but less likely. Known languages in every glossa he reviewed? Possible, but venturing into real conspiracy theory territory here. Is it possible that all unbiased researchers who've investigated glossolalia have all missed actual languages in all the samples they reviewed merely because they were not born again? I submit that if you take that likelihood seriously, we have left the realm of a rational conversation and should just bid each other adieu. This was never about proving my case. It wasn't about proving how widespread SIT fakery is. It was always about finding the one exception, the one case where one competent linguist reviewed one case of glossolalia and determined that, yes, this was an identifiable language. Swahili. And the person who produced it had no means of learning that language. And it was positively identified by a real speaker of Swahili (or whatever). Every researcher who has investigated glossolalia has failed to identify a language. Why? I say because there was none to identify, but that's merely suggested and demonstrated by the evidence. It's not proof (and I never said it was). Every researcher who has investigated glossolalia has failed to identify a language. Why? You say it's because they are spiritually unaware and incapable of the spiritual discernment required to see God in action. That's a theological response. You're entitled to it. I do not share it. Not with an empirical claim. Great for the new birth. Lousy for speaking in tongues. OR: You say it's because the linguists aren't as sharp as they think they are when it comes to the ability to classify language. That's a wildly speculative response. But you're entitled to it. What you have done, which you cannot do, is assume your speculation to be true and demand we account for it or explain it. No. You are entitled to speculate, but you are not entitled to a response that accounts for it. What I have not done, yet you repeatedly claim I have, is point to the testable evidence as definitive proof of my claim that free vocalization accounts for all SIT. That claim is unprovable. It is only disprovable, and it can be disproved by reminding everyone where the burden of proof lies in the first place. You say speaking in tongues produces a language. That is the claim that CAN be proved but hasn't been. Ragging on me for failing to prove my claim while demonstrating that you don't have the slightest idea how the burden of proof works in an honest debate (I'm sorry if that's insulting, but you've demonstrated it repeatedly and will do so again when you respond to this) misses the point. I can't prove my position. You can prove yours. Your court.

What guilt? Socks, you're not the one demanding I believe your story, so I do not demand answers that you are unwilling to provide. It's that simple. I have been chastised for not believing the story. In order to believe the story, I think I'm entitled to question its details. You're the only one with those details, so I am compelled to direct all questions to you. If you do not wish to participate in that conversation, I have ZERO problem with that. But it needs to be understood that I am not merely dismissing your account or playing a doubting Thomas "I don't believe it because I don't wanna" kind of game. If I do not ask the questions, I do not show a willingness to find the answers. I AM willing. Quite willing.