Raf

Using that logic, nothing, including gibberish, including admitted fakery, can ever be ruled out as a language. This is what I mean when I say no test, null hypothesis or otherwise, can satisfy your particularly absolute demand for proof to a level of certainty that we can both accept. You can't even prove something you KNOW to be made up is not a language, to any degree of confidence. How do you know Muh muh muh muh muh isn't a language? Maybe it's the word for Christ in a language no one's heard since the dispersion from the tower of Babel (presumably the dawn of modern languages). So if you're arguing that the field of linguistics is incapable of addressing this issue, you've robbed me of any ability to say anything other than what I think. How dare you demand proof when you so effectively demonstrate that no amount of evidence will suffice? Ah, but I have a demand for proof that the opposing side CAN meet.

Agreed. Sadly for this effort, I threw out all my TWI tapes and books years ago. This includes Gartmore Weekly Tapes. Click here for why I did that.

And we disagree on why, but there are only two possibilities: It was a language, and they failed to recognize it; or it wasn't a language. They insist on the latter, and the former is speculative. You're entitled to the speculation. Not going to argue it anymore. Sure they can. I'm not sure HOW MANY languages. But phonemic inventories are not hard to come by, especially if this is your field of work. But it hasn't been an issue in the research we've been reviewing. WHY?

Actually, while that would be interesting, our self-consciousness about the controversy might rule us out as test subjects. I would rather gather up all those Gartmore Weekly Tapes on which the SIT and interpretation were actually recorded and widely distributed ("wide" being a relative term, since we have no idea what the circulation numbers ever were). Of course, a language known to the speaker but unknown to the English speaking audience might be an easier thing to pull off in a European setting than in an American one. Multilingualism is far more common outside the U.S. Thus, we would not be able to rule out fakery even if we saw a known language in that particular setting unless we knew for a fact that the speaker had no prior knowledge of that language. And no, I would not put such a deception past Gartmore House. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if you think Chris Geer is above deceiving a crowd, you haven't been paying attention. *** Depending on how old Samarin was at the time of his writing (late 1960s, mid 1970s) he could very easily have passed away by now. Wouldn't surprise me one whit. But he's not the only linguist out there. I've e-mailed three asking for background on or copies of their published research OR to find out how ongoing research is progressing. Haven't heard back from them (nor would I expect to, but it's worth a shot). *** Oh, I didn't think you were. I just wouldn't be able to blame anyone who dismissed the research on that grounds. Assuming all the findings of all the research we've reviewed to be pointing to the truth, one could still say, "Well, they didn't test us." And I'd have no comeback to that. *** Back to the question I posed in my last two posts: anyone? anyone? Oh, but it is. SIT and TIP were central, crucial aspects of TWI theology. I contend it played a significant role in the cult's ability to ensnare us and keep us devoted to it in practice while we were there and in principle when we left. It only needs to be moved to soap if good questions stop being raised. Good questions are still being raised. Hey! Speaking of good questions... anyone? anyone?

I think we can safely assume that it was not. I can only look at the research we have. I mentioned this oodles of pages ago. There are some things that the researchers review that we can easily find commonality with in TWI. This is mostly in the descriptions of how people are led into tongues. There are clear doctrino-practical differences that any of us will recognize, as well as similarities. If you'd like me to list them, I will. But I could not argue with anyone who chooses to dismiss these studies solely on the basis that they didn't study our peculiar (decent and in order, we do our own interpreting) brand of SIT. We were not the same as much of the rest of Christianity on this front. In fact, we were particularly proud of that fact. But let's not lose the other question here: Why do the researchers not describe their efforts to match the glossa to known languages other than the native language of the speaker? Anyone? Anyone? Come on, it's easy.

An actual good question is raised here: I posit that if the researchers found a sample of glossolalia that did not match the phonetic strata of the native language of the speaker (allowing for some "innovation" in borrowed sounds to which the speaker would have access without a full command of the language in question -- my Chanukkah example), that the researchers would then be able to take the phonetic strata of the glossa and compare it to known languages. We have no evidence that this activity was ever performed by any of the researchers. They sure as heck don't go into detail about it in the material we've been reviewing. WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THIS? Does anyone have an answer? Anyone? Beuller? Frye? Why, I have an answer. And it's an easy one. But does anyone else?

Why do I keep thinking WordWolf is two words?

I thought it was "you'll shoot your eye out," which would make it "A Christmas Story." I'm gonna try this one: I can't find another standout line from this movie, but if you know the movie, you'll get it. Hint: It has something in common with E.T. (but not in plot or actors or anything like that). The quote: "That is one nutty hospital."

Understood. Too blunt and accusatory. Kudos to you for seeing past that. We were manipulated by a cult whose erroneous doctrines and practices introduced error into every aspect of our lives. To admit just how far they were able to reach into your life and mine takes an uncompromising honesty. It wasn't the evidence of fakery that persuaded me. It was the absence of proof of veracity.

Sorry, Word Wolf. Apparently making an observation, asking a question, formulating a hypothesis, predicting an outcome, testing the data, analyzing the test results and forming a conclusion is only the scientific method if you write it all down. If you don't write it all down, it's not the scientific method. Then it's just thinking, I guess. Never mind that the scientific method was developed as an articulation of the critical thinking process in the first place... Anyone who thinks the milk example is not an easy to follow walk through the scientific method has no business lecturing me, Samarin or anyone else on its proper application. This is all so much easier than its been made out to be. When multiple scientists in multiple fields study the same phenomenon and come to the same conclusion, is your first instinct that they all failed to use the scientific method? Really? Ok.

Nooooo

Jfk is on a hunnert dollar bill?

Ben Franklin is on a fitty cent piece?

Well, I won't dumb it down any further for you.

Tried to demonstrate the scientific method in terms so simple a first grader could follow along. Clearly I aimed too high.

Ah. Passengers is the giveaway. Murder on the Orient Express

Now and then I think it pays, as we recall the trees that made up TWI, to take a step back and look at the forest. TWI was a pattern of deception. It wasn't that there was something wrong. It wasn't even that there were a lot of things wrong. The whole enterprise was rotten to the core. Every good thing about it was a trap to draw you into its real reason to exist: to control you and leave you utterly dependent on them for as many facets of your life as possible. I'm lucky. I got out fast. For those of you who stayed a long time: I can't fathom the damage that was done. I'm impressed that you got out in one piece! It's like I said when the Actual Errors thread came to a merciful end: trying to mine our TWI experience to figure out what was good in it is like looking at the cheese in a mousetrap as a potential source of calcium. I'm not denying it's cheese. I'm not denying it has calcium. But I'm also not losing sight of who laid it out there and why.

If anyone thinks a good point has been made that deserves a response, please copy and paste it, and I will be happy to do so. I am not wasting my time on this anymore. Sow-weeee.

Yeah, and the cast of Ishtar was pretty well respected too. ;)

Sherlock Holmes (the recent one, with Robert Downey)? Or Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows ?

I laughed. For the record, I don't routinely check reports of abuse or rules violations. Not saying I never have, but if someone wants to report me, it's not a useless exercise. Other mods will see it. And if I act on such a report, by trying to sweep it under the rug or some such nonsense, that's trackable. The other mods CAN see what I've done. I imagine the consequences of my doing so would be severe. In other words, feel free to report me if you think I've violated the rules. I probably won't see it, and on the off chance I do, I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

I'll accept any of three movies for this one. But only the three obvious ones. No parodies. My precious...

That's hilarious. But wouldn't it be more accurate to pull your vote and not cast one at all due to uncertainty? I mean, you don't really agree with me. I mean, if you're sure you faked it and are fessing up, great. Welcome to the club. But wouldn't the option right before the last option be the correct one for you? I can't have convinced you that it's all fake, have I? Not with such shoddy research as I've been citing?

Cheated. Never heard of the second movie. Sequel to Traxx?

Wow. A quote was taken out of context and applied to something we weren't discussing? That just stuns me. It is so unlike anything we've seen a billion times on this thread already. You are absolutely correct, Waysider. Samarin was not testing or discussing Acts 2, and I am not questioning it. I did get the quote wrong, though. It was "a glossa is never a natural language." Samarin also distinguished between the hypothetical real case of xenoglossia and glossolalia. The difference? One produces a language. The other does not. In Samarin's later works, he is more explicit about this finding. But he's a hack who doesn't know a devil spirit from the holy spirit. We should be trusting Landry. There's an unbiased researcher we can trust! I haven't read Chockfull's latest posts and don't intend to. Sorry. Done. But I do want to clarify something I said yesterday regarding the scientific method and what scientists do when they classify unknown objects or phenomena according to their properties. To the best of my knowledge, all science, including classification, employs the scientific method. I hope I was clear in saying that the scientific method of hypothesis testing is an element of classification that is present in every step of that process. It's just not always a big explicit thing where you formulate the question, state the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the data and draw a conclusion. It's an implicit thing. Anyway, it's tedious to go through it step by step, but you need to understand that I am not denying the use of the scientific method as a fundamental element of the classification process. It's there, in every step. When you sniff a carton of milk (or a bottle, most of the time these days) to determine whether it's gone bad, you've employed the scientific method. You haven't drawn a big chart. You haven't outlined every step. But if you had to go back and break it down, you will be able to identify the scientific method at work. Is this milk good? Hypothesis: This milk is good. Prediction: Good milk doesn't smell like a dead rat. Test: You smell the milk. Analysis: This smells like a dead rat. Conclusion: This milk is not good. Classification works the same way. So if I left you with the impression that classification does not employ the scientific method, that is my error of wording and not an error of understanding. Chockfull wants a null hypothesis test of the question "there is no difference between glossolalia and free vocalization." There is no way to put such a test together that will satisfy him, me or anyone else. There is no way to reach a confidence interval that will satisfy anyone because it's an all or nothing proposition. The simpler thing to do is subject every glossa to the scientific method to properly classify it. Scientists, particularly linguists, have done this. Without exception, they find that glossolalia does not produce a known language. You can quibble about their methods and reject them on any grounds you want. I'm not interested in arguing about that anymore. This isn't a trial. I'm not the judge. Let the readers decide whether to trust the results or mistrust them based on Chockfull's objections.