Raf

Free Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Yielding my turn to AHAT or Word Wolf, whoever gets here first.

By the way, just because a fallacy is improperly invoked, that doesn't mean it can't bring you to a correct result. Sometimes the nature of a claim is such that the only way to determine its validity is to try and fail to refute it. That is what a null hypothesis is (as distinct from my "hypothesis," which is, in reality, a challenge to another hypothesis). I'll give you an example most of us are familiar with: The written works of VPW are God-breathed. This SOUNDS like a big, fat affirmative claim, but in order to investigate it on rational terms it needs to be treated as a null hypothesis. Because the written works of VPW define "God-breathed" and spell out the characteristics of God-breathed work, the only sensible way to approach the hypothesis would not be to PROVE it, but to DISPROVE it. A failure to disprove it would leave one with some degree of confidence that the hypothesis is true. Yes, it shifts the burden of proof to the person arguing against the big fat claim, but it does so in the only conceivable way to objectively get to the truth. An honest challenge, in such a case, would have to accept the burden of proof, even though doing so in other cases would represent a fallacious approach. In effect, we changed the terms of the debate to make the denial an affirmative claim: the works of PFAL have errors and contradictions. For those who don't know, we accepted the challenge and uncovered some 30 errors and contradictions in the written works of VPW that disqualify it, on its own terms, of being God-breathed. The identified errors were real, not just differences of opinion on what the Bible teaches. In THIS conversation, even if one were to presume that I am the one making the big fat claim, it is acknowledged by both sides that my claim cannot be proved, but it can be disproved. The only rational way to approach the question is to cast it in provable terms. I can't prove my case. You CAN prove yours. Snap to it.

I did a major edit of my last post (1385) instead of putting up a new one. Enjoy. In case anyone was in the midst of quoting from that last post while it was being edited, I take responsibility for any inconsistencies between what's posted now and what's quoted. You know, just in case.

I'd settle for reading reports.

Correct

I mostly agree with Word Wolf, especially in light of the post he's quoting, but one thing needs clarification: There is no such thing as a burden of proof fallacy, but there IS such a thing as a "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy. Chockfull has both misdefined it and misapplied it to this conversation. He sincerely believes that I have the burden of proof because I started the thread and was "loudest" about it (that second quality has nothing to do with jacks hit). Simply put, in any debate involving an affirmative claim, the burden of proving that claim falls on the person making it. Chockfull and I honestly disagree on who's making the affirmative claim. I concede that i started the thread, but it takes a special brand of ignorance and denial to assert that i am the one making the affirmative claim here. I am gratified that people looking at this conversation with an identifiable bias against me, that is, people who WANT me to be wrong, recognize that i am not the one making the affirmative claim here. Tongues speakers are. And the burden is on you to prove your claim. None of the above represents a fallacy. So, so far, Word Wolf is 100% correct. But SHIFTING the burden of proof IS a fallacy. This happens when the side making the affirmative claim insists on the claim's veracity, despite it being UNproven, until the OTHER side disproves it. To the untrained eye (ie, Chockfull's) this appears to be what I am doing. I am making a "big fat claim" that modern SIT is not Biblical SIT. Chockfull is asking me to prove it, and my response is that the only way to get to the truth is to disprove my big fat claim. But that interpretation assumes that the claim I am making is an affirmative one. It is not. The claim I am making is a response to a claim made more than a century before this thread even started. It is the original BIG FAT claim, that modern SIT IS Biblical SIT, that is the affirmative claim that has not been proved. In short, I am NOT asking you to disprove MY claim. I am asking you to PROVE yours. There is a world of difference. People who entered this dialogue wanting me to be wrong have conceded that I am correct in my analysis of the burden of proof issue. The side that is challenging the affirmative claim has every right to wait for proof, and no responsibility to disprove what hasn't been proved in the first place. You say you have a dragon in your garage. Prove it. The claim is yours to prove, not mine to disprove. Lately, Chockfull's gotten clever about shifting the burden of proof, throwing around words like "null hypothesis," "statistics" and "confidence intervals," as if he's got the slightest idea what he's talking about or the slightest intention of honoring a scientific investigation if one is either produced or undertaken. The entire venture he proposes is a shifting of the burden of proof. Look at his wording: Here's what Chockfull doesn't tell you (and why I reject this approach as a waste of time, since he asked me for a refutation): First off, there's no such thing as a sample space. There's such a thing as a sample SIZE, and let's assume that's what he meant. He wants a representative sample that could measure the hypothesis statistically to ascertain the veracity of the null hypothesis to a measurable confidence interval. What he doesn't tell you is that no such sample size exists. ANY attempt to put such a sample together will be successfully challenged. And Chockfull doesn't even have to be the one to do it. I would challenge anything that claims to be a "representative sample" of modern tongues speakers for the purpose Chockfull describes. The error here is attempting to subject this discussion to the terms of the null hypothesis when, in truth, the null hypothesis is not the one in question. In fact, I would venture to say that we HAVE the information Chockfull requests. He simply rejects it. Of all the claims of SIT that have been recorded AND examined by linguists, NOT ONE has been positively identified as a human language. Not one. So Chockfull speculates, without basis, that the linguists simply failed to recognize the languages that slipped by them. All the linguist all failed to identify all the languages. But Chockfull correctly points out that WE do not have the raw data (ID's of the speakers, backgrounds, recordings and/or accurate transcriptions, etc) to retrace the steps of those who did the testing. However, he incorrectly presumes that this information was not taken by those doing the studying. There's a problem with that presumption. Samarin's works, Goodman's, etc. were all published in peer-reviewed publications. It is a requirement of such studies that such information is taken and kept. So it is safer to assume that such information WAS gathered and can be obtained within the volumes of studies and other information to which WE have not yet had access (and there's already been a concession that our access is limited compared to the body of work out there) than it is to presume that it doesn't exist. Interestingly, SHERRILL's work (which, as summarized, comes closest among those we've seen to proving SIT's validity), is NOT published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is far more reasonable to presume that he did NOT keep or publish the background material we would like and expect to see in the other studies. However, it is entirely possible and would be a tremendous credit to his integrity if he did so. Until someone gets his book, we won't know that. Meanwhile, all Chockfull has to do is produce and identify the language HE produces in SIT, and we're done here.

Ok, AHAT, jump back in when you're ready. Meantime: Uncle Remus tells the delightful tales of Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman.

By the way, I reject the assertion that the research we have been reviewing is shoddy. It is not shoddy. The assertion is being made by someone with no interest in seeking the truth. The proposed alternative, even if successfully applied, would be rejected as inconclusive. And I mean BY ME. I do not see a method of developing a sample where the results could satisfy any statistical degree of certainty. It is an impossible task and a waste of time.

For those who care about such things: this is what's referred to as a LIE. I DID answer this question. Not definitively. Not with a rock solid "here's what conclusion you should draw." No, that would be dogmatic. I left it wide open. I said it could be a couple of things. Cessationism is one theory. Or maybe it IS available and we're just not doing it right. A number of Biblical responses are possible. But my inability to answer that question with a firm response does not negate the premise that modern SIT and Biblical SIT are demonstrably not the same thing. "Zero response"? ZERO? Lie. Not satisfied with the responses you did get? That would have been true.

I don't think a new thread will cover any new ground. I understand no one wants to go through 60 someodd pages of this stuff, but really, the bottom line is that we've said all that needs to be said, and anyone truly interested in the subject has what they need here. Starting over invites a level of rehashing that I am disinclined to do right now. Hope you understand.

I can see it now: "Raf says I won! He admits he's wrong!"

Chockfull: Every time I answer you in detail, you LIE and distort my answers and the research on which it is based. Then I have to disentangle your lies and distortions to return to a common ground, but you then start trying to shift the common ground. It's not worth the energy. I'm glad you find it hilarious. Really. Knock yourself out. You WON! Aren't you HAPPY?

Whatever.

Pete, I get what you're saying. You are welcome to discuss anything you'd like. If I have something to respond to, I will do so. If I don't, I will keep silent. Kit Sober expressed herself beautifully a few pages back, utterly disagreed with me, and it did not energize an argument because she gave me nothing to respond to. I'll look at your post in a little more depth later. Interested in that Puff of Smoke analogy. I submit that the Bible says you're going to puff out white smoke, and if you puff out black smoke, you're doing something other than what the Bible says. But that's a superficial approach to an analogy that's kind of superficial in the first place (no insult intended), so I don't know how well it holds up. Once I post something, it is not "my" thread. It's ours. You are as free to post as I am. As long as you stay on the site rules, etc., no one can or should complain. Chockfull can keep posting, too. I merely reserve the right to no longer waste my time responding to every little thing, and I certainly won't jump through hoops looking to satisfy a petitioner who has made it clear that no amount of evidence will persuade him of anything. Better things to do. But I won't complain if he posts. And you, Pete, have not shown yourself to be approaching this the same way. You and I are not discussing linguistic studies, so I won't expect you to do so in any particular way.

Chockfull, Listen: I am rejecting any terms by which you decide to proceed with this discussion. You have shown yourself repeatedly to approach this discussion in a manner devoid of integrity. Sorry. You've exhausted my patience on that front. Go claim victory somewhere and throw yourself a party.

Sean Penn Mystic River Tim Robbins

Ouch. Let me play Angel's Advocate here because there are some things that are being said but not being adequately addressed because of where and how they are said. First, everyone on this thread, myself included, has limited access to the studies that have been done. This is explicit in my, for now, rejection of Sherrill based on insufficient data. I'm inclined not to believe Sherrill for reasons I've stated elsewhere, but I do so only in a superficial way. I have not seen his research and cannot comment intelligently on it... and neither can anyone else on this thread who has not read it. So we have an outstanding piece of potential evidence and/or research that very well could prove me wrong, but no one here knows it because we haven't seen it. We HAVE seen a summary of it, but no one has challenged me, seriously or otherwise, on my rejection of that summary. It is also VERY possible, if modern SIT is true, that someone we have yet to identify HAS documented an example or multiple examples. We just haven't come across the research yet. This is related to the inherent problem of sample size. Any sample under 100 percent is insufficient to prove my point conclusively. I can discover (for the sake of argument) that 99.95 percent of alleged glossolalia HAS been documented and reviewed and determined to be non-language, and there would still be a possibility that genuine, Biblical SIT is produced in the remaining 0.05 percent consisting of unreviewed cases. Assuming 10 million people SIT, that leaves us with thousands of people producing the real thing under the radar, so to speak. I'm wrong, but the evidence still shows I'm right because no legitimate case has been reviewed. Chockfull raises another issue: On what basis are we assuming that the phenomenon of glossolalia is really what Samarin's reviewing? We don't know who the speakers are. We are pretty much taking his word that they are, indeed, Christians claiming to produce glossolalia. How do we know they're telling the truth? Because Samarin says so? And Goodman? And Kildahl? And Newman (who did the brain wave study that, I believe we agreed, doesn't prove what people claim it does)? And every other psychologist, sociologist and linguist who's investigated SIT? We only know what they're telling us. What if all their subjects are lying to the researchers? If what they're telling us is a lie from the pit of hell, then we're investigating scientific analyses of something that's not even SIT! Personally, I think that last paragraph is a nutty conspiracy theory. It takes for granted a profound level of dishonesty, but if you're inclined to believe that this kind of research is committed to discrediting SIT instead of investigating it, then you have to take that possibility into account. In that case, you can reject the research wholesale -- but you're rejecting the research. You're not countering it. You're not debating it. You're not discussing it. You're declaring it invalid by fiat. Hey, feel free. But if you can do that to the research, you have no standing to stop me from doing that to your SIT claims. Good for the goose, as they say. If we do not agree that the research into SIT is a valid subject of inquiry and review, we have no common ground for an argument or discussion. That's fine, if that's what you want to do. It certainly appears to be where Chockfull is headed. It answers none of the questions raised in this thread. It evades them. And if you're cool with that, Godspeed. We are left with each other's opinions, and to each his own.

Forgive the thread interruption, but I had to post THIS AMAZING LIST of the 6 most spectacular low points in modern pop culture. Look what made number one, the LOWEST point in modern pop culture!

Correct.

Flashbacks and nightmares.

I have a good one. If AHAT doesn't post by the end of today, anyone mind if I jump in?

I'm your number one fan.

Yeah, I definitely got the quote wrong, but clearly I was right enough to draw out the correct-ish answer. It was Aliens. Your move.

By now, your dismissal and denigration of free vocalization as an innate human ability should embarrass you. That it doesn't underscores my contention that you are not approaching this subject honestly and really don't deserve to be responded to as though you are.

Ah! So the third reference is NOT the one I thought it was. Rather, it was some outside reference getting lumped in on this thread with the accounts we already have. Thanks for clearing that up. If you're going to do THAT, then the number of accounts is a LOT greater than three. I mean a LOT greater. You left out the review of Sherrill's work, for example, which implies at LEAST two more. All undocumented. All unverifiable. But I'm supposed to believe them solely on the basis that the claim was made. He doesn't do this in ANY of his studies? Really? So... you've reviewed the rest of his studies? Right? Not just the one article we're referring to. You've reviewed them all and determined that he doesn't provide a reference to statistics in any of them? Oh, you HAVEN'T read all of Samarin's studies. So... I have to assume someone else HAS reviewed them, and you're citing that other person as your source. Because you CERTAINLY are not stating your opinion as fact. I mean, that would be... Interstingly, Samarin DOES provide a sample of glossolalia in the study we are reviewing. But you would have known that if you'd just read the flipping report. Sure. I haven't reviewed the work, so I'll just trust you are able to do this. Name the Persian. Name the Glossolalist.