Raf

I don't think he's constructing a straw man so much as he's making a concerted effort at looking at this from all angles and deciding which one is correct. Keep reading. I don't agree with everything he says either (for example, I do not believe SIT opens you up to a Satanic influence).

Wow! I have been debunked! Or... Who were the linguists? What are their names and qualifications? How were they chosen? I mean, yes, they gathered at a "University of Columbia," but were they students or professors? Is that the same thing as Columbia University? Has anyone heard of the University of Columbia? Details, please, if you have them. Did Sherrill seek these linguists out at the college or did he stumble across one or two at church? Have they reviewed and affirmed Sherrill's report? This review of Sherrill's work tells us too little about the linguists to allow for much confidence in their professionalism. I have no reason to doubt them, true. Ok, not true. I have reason to doubt them. When anonymous scientists are cited by a religious writer who then uses their findings to prove a theological point, I think the reader is entitled to question the validity of the source. It's a question, not a conclusion. I'm not dismissing them. I just want more data. Not to mention: the expertise of a linguist is language. I have reservations about any linguist who claims to have "caught the emotional content" of a message and who subsequently labels such a thing "beautiful." I submit "beautiful emotional content" is not an unbiased, linguistic, analytic conclusion. And how does the writer here make the leap from "none of the tongues were recognized as a language" to "that these were true languages and not just gibberish was certain." Certain? Certain? Ahem: unless they could ID the language, certain is a strong word. The only thing "certain" is that this crop of linguists didn't know how many languages there are. They were off by more than 100 percent! What was the gibberish? Was any genuine effort made to make the gibberish sound like a real language? You know, like the stunt I pulled in TWI, which blessed sooooo many people? We don't know. Samarin makes the point that glossolalia is not gibberish, but unlike this report, Samarin is quite clear in defining his terms. With Samarin, gibberish does not contain the quality of effort to produce a real language present in glossolalia. Is Sherrill hitting on the same thing here? We don't know. What we do know is this: Sherrill and the writer of this piece made their presentations before Samarin's study was presented, so they must be forgiven for not referring back to his work. Sherrill was a writer for a religious publication who went on to become an avid tongues-speaker and who wrote a book on the subject. The title of his book was, in all likelihood, NOT: "I'm Faking Tongues: Here's How You Can, Too!" His objectivity is very much subject to debate. Hmm. Dismiss him? I don't have enough to dismiss him yet. After all, I'm biased too, but I hope you're not dismissing what I say because of it. Why doesn't Poythress cite Sherrill? You would think that if linguists studied glossolalia and determined they were "certainly" languages, someone as open-minded as Poythress would find it worth mentioning. No? Samarin, whose study was published three years after this paper and seven years after Sherrill's book, doesn't even mention him. Why? Why does no one writing after Sherrill cite him as a credible source? And if Sherrill did conduct an unbiased study, why couldn't the results be replicated? Shouldn't Samarin have shown the same results? Shouldn't every linguist who studies glossolalia reach the same conclusion? Did Sherrill happen to have a recording of the only genuine SITters on earth? Results of real scientific studies can be replicated. That is, in fact, the mark of a genuine finding. If I boil water and determine that the boiling point is 212 degrees F, when you independently boil water, the temperature should be 212 degrees F. Have Sherrill's findings been replicated? And dare I ask how his finding of certainty in language content squares with God not participating in the studies? It's intriguing stuff, though, I must say.

This one is a bit more up the alley of my opponents on this page. A search for the name "Sherrill" (cited by Landry and Moore) will save you time. Look for the third occurrence of Sherrill's name. http://kenady.150m.com/chapel/bhs/glossolalia.pdf Personally, I put no more stock in this paper than I do in Wierwille's RTHST, but it's worth putting out there for those looking for ammo against me. :)

For the record, my life goals are to make gold valuable and to popularize the use of water for thirst-quenching.

The article you just promised to read should satisfy your request for documentation from Waysider. I picked that article, incidentally, because it cites some of the same sources that Landry cited, perhaps allowing for a bit more insight into what the cited linguists were saying. That said, I do not know who Mark Moore (the writer) is or what his credentials are, so reader beware. I do think his article is better-written than Landry's paper.

Bringing this up without comment, only to recover what we can of Landry's paper.

By the way, I urge you to read this: http://markmoore.org/resources/essays/tongues.shtml It weighs heavily, though not entirely, in favor of my hypothesis, but there are many things I think you can glean from it to challenge my view.

Chockfull: this is my fault, but there's no L in Poythress. I think I was the first to make that mistake, and I've stuck you with it. I don't want to dismiss Landry just because he was a college student writing a paper for class. That would be ad hominem. But a couple of things need to be noted. One, I cannot vouch for the quality of his analysis, not having seen his primary sources (aside from Samarin). Two, I am reasonably confident that Landry was, at the time, an evangelical kid who set out to write something supportive of SIT, not a cold analysis of what SIT actually produces (I could easily be wrong about this. I'm basing it on his concluding paragraph, which you were kind enough to quote earlier in this thread: That last paragraph does not withstand academic scrutiny). In any event, what Landry writes about other linguistic analyses should stand on its own. It is not false because Landry had an agenda. It is not true because Landry did not have an agenda. Landry has nothing to do with it. It's just that where I would cite Samarin as an authority, I would not do the same for Landry. I doubt that would upset him. So my jury on the statements you made regarding his analysis of Samarin is still out.

The JW thing is worth noting and putting out there for discussion. It is, however, a form of ad hominem reasoning which I've tried to avoid. "You don't have to take this opinion seriously because it's coming from Wierwille, who's a charlatan." Wierwille may have been a charlatan, but that doesn't automatically disqualify anything he said. "You don't have to take the opposite opinion seriously because it's coming from a relapsed JW." Whether or not that's the case (and I assure you it is not), it is irrelevant to whether my hypothesis is correct or not. Briefly touching back on the burden of proof issue, sometimes a hypothesis is presented that cannot be proved but can be ruled out. This happens in some medical diagnoses. To pick an example fresh on my mind, there is no test to prove someone has ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease). ALS does exist, but there's no single test that proves someone has it. What doctors do is rule out everything else. This has applications to both sides of this debate. From your perspective, one side claims to speak in tongues (genuine, Biblical) but has defined SIT in such a way as to make its veracity untestable. The best we can do is seek to rule out all alternative explanations. In my opinion, that side has not successfully ruled out free vocalization undertaken with sincerity (in fact, one of you, if I'm not mistaken, actually defines SIT this way, taking what would otherwise be proof of fakery and turning it into proof of validity!) But more to the point, the hypothesis that it's all a fake cannot be proved. It can, however, be ruled out. In my view, the only way to rule out the hypothesis that it's all a fake would be to produce a language. And we're back to square one. Anyway, that was just on my mind. Bottom line is, you cannot properly dismiss what I'm saying based on my religious views because you are making a testable claim that is true or false irrespective of whether I believe or accept it. You're either speaking in tongues, Biblically, or you're not. The Bible describes what is produced when you speak in tongues. Tongues, in the Bible, are human languages. Not secret codes. Not language-ish things. Languages. They are unknown to the speaker, but they are not unknown to humanity. If we disagree on that, there is no further opportunity for discussion. All this to get to your question: what are my thoughts on your experience? What follows is my opinion. All of it. Please do not (Chockfull) take one paragraph that follows and scold me for not marking it as my opinion. I am doing so right now. Ok? Cool. ;) Allan, what you are doing is sincere. It is heartfelt. You are seeking to do what you believe to be God's Will. Nonetheless, you are in all likelihood not speaking in a language that you have never learned. What you are speaking may sound like a language to you, but no race of people on Earth has ever communicated with each other in that language. Your statement that you are not faking it is a testament to your personal sincerity and integrity, but it is not a testament to the validity of what you are doing. What you are doing is only Biblical SIT if you're speaking a human language. I submit you are not. I cannot prove such without listening to you, possibly recording it, and submitting it to objective analysis. But I'm willing to bet I am right. (If I'm wrong, I recently met someone who will give you $1 million if you can prove it. I'm not kidding). What about JW's? Why are they more reluctant to do it? Waysider correctly points out that they received doctrine that SIT is devilish. Naturally, such people will be more reluctant to engage in the practice than someone who has not been subjected to such a doctrine. In addition, I submit that they are more likely, because of said reluctance, to listen to that voice in their head that tells them "this is just me. I'm 'faking' this." Poythress describes the speaker in such a case, as well as the coach who reassures the speaker that the doubts are just the devil trying to talk you out of it. What about gay people (I refuse to dignify the use of quotes in the word "gay," as if to subtly assert that these folks only think they're gay) speaking in tongues? What about it? Poythress already tells us that anyone can engage in free vocalization. It's not a magic trick. There's nothing supernatural about it. In fact, I would submit that the only logical way to tell a case of free vocalization from a case of genuine SIT would be to compare the results. The results have been compared. There's no distinction. In summary, Allan, you are a free vocalizer who has taught others to free vocalize. It's not God. It's not Satan. It's you and the speaker. I have no doubt as to your sincerity and integrity. I have serious doubt as to the validity of your claim. There's something in logic and debate called Occam's Razor which, while not always applicable, is instructive. When you have two alternative explanations for a set of evidence, the simpler one is usually the correct one. Free vocalization exists. It produces something that sounds like a language and has language-like qualities, but is not a language. SIT is claimed. It produces something that is linguistically indistinguishable from free vocalization. Two explanations: 1. Free vocalization is a human ability that requires no supernatural energizing agent, while SIT is a Christian ability that does require a supernatural energizing agent. The reason we cannot distinguish between free vocalization and SIT is that God may not be cooperating with the analysis, the linguistic analysis may be flawed (it would have to be flawed for both) or... fill in the blank. I don't hold this position and don't want to misrepresent it. 2. SIT is free vocalization, the sincerity of the speaker notwithstanding. I believe the second explanation is the simpler one, and I hold to it until presented with actual evidence to the contrary. Your sincerity is not evidence. A decades-old anecdote with no retrievable primary sources is not evidence. A language would be evidence. Did I answer your question? I apologize if my response comes off as disrespectful. You asked. ;)

Quick vocabulary change: I've previously referred to my position as my "thesis." A thesis is something the presenter considers proved. It is more accurate to call my position a hypothesis. A hypothesis exists to be tested. The notion that all modern SIT is fake is a hypothesis to be tested.

Christopher Walken Excess Baggage Alicia Silverstone

Excy, I adore you, but I don't believe you. People don't follow and post repeatedly on threads that bore them. They ignore them. I'm sure this thread gives you mixed feelings, but I'd be surprised if boredom were truly in the mix.

Allan, I am most certainly not flirting with or interested in becoming a Jehovah's Witness. Further, I think we have done an excellent job here of approaching SIT on its merits, particularly in terms of whether the practice today is producing what the Bible promises. If we disagree on what the Bible says SIT will produce, there is nothing to discuss on this thread. I have no evidence that you personally faked anything. I have a belief you did not ask me for. But it's on the merits. If SIT (modern practice) is what the Bible says it is, shouldn't it produce what the Bible says it will?

Chockfull: I honestly believe you have confused Poythress and Landry (the college kid who pulled his paper off the web. Help? Did anyone print out Landry's paper?

I don't think Poythress is saying what you suggest, but instead of a knee jerk response, I'll stew on it a bit and give it the consideration it deserves

In other writings, Samarin refers to the linguistic qualities of SIT as superficial. Check out the links in the SIT reading room in doctrinal. You simply cannot quote Samarin to support SIT as language. He concludes the opposite in rather forceful terms.

True. Rephrasing: both Poythress and Samarin explain the human capacity to do this with no effort at deception. Samarin does not address spiritual inspiration. He is, nonetheless, quite explicit about the results: linguistic qualities that the speaker brings into it through his conscious desire to produce a language, but in no uncertain terms, NOT a language. Poythress does draw a distinction between those who fake it on purpose and those who believe themselves to really be producing SIT. The product of each is indistinguishable linguistically from the other. Poythress does not conclude "not a language," but it is noteworthy that his refusal to draw that conclusion is made on theological grounds, not academic, not linguistic and not scientific. If he were writing for a peer-reviewed scientific journal, his refusal to draw a conclusion there would be subject to deep and severe criticism. Because he is writing for a theological journal, he is permitted the latitude. Nonetheless, let's be clear: Samarin is as explicit as he can be that SIT is not language. Poythress takes you right to the same place, but drops you off to take the last step on your own.

I agree with you on burden of proof, chockfull, as far as its value in this discussion. Burden of proof sets the terms. It does not inform the actual subject matter.

Taking lines from Poythress and Samarin out of context when they're examining linguistics while ignoring their very clear statements that SIT does not produce real language is as intellectually dishonest as anything I've been accused us. In fact, it goes beyond intellectual dishonesty and crosses the line into deliberate misrepresentation. Poythress and Samarin not only describe this as a human, non spiritual activity, but they each describe in recognizable detail exactly how a sincere person who has no conscious desire to fake SIT will nonetheless do so, producing the exact same thing, linguistically, as an admitted faker. In effect, both say it looks, walks and quacks like a duck. Poythress won't call it a duck; Samarin will.

Ok. I take responsibility for my part. So long as it's reciprocal and the politeness police recognize that.

Please do not psychoanalyze me. You are crossing the line that made this an unpleasant conversation last time. You are misrepresenting the studies. They are very clear that these are not languages, and the linguistic qualities they do contain are shared by fakery. So, again, all the actual evidence leans only in one direction.

By the way, the claim I initiated was that I lied and others did too. I did not say all others: that was a poll response. If the last response is a thesis statement that must be proved, so are the others. Anyone claiming to SIT should prove it. I can only prove the counterposition by presenting evidence to the contrary, no amount of which will convince you. Thus far, the only evidence presented that comes close to refuting my claim are a couple of decades-old anecdotes whose participants and details are very much in question.

That's very kind, OS, but you get the credit for confronting a deeply held belief. Whether the burden of proof rests with me or with the other side is up to each individual to decide. I've made as strong a case as I can that the burden rests on those claiming SIT is real, especially considering that they have not presented me with any realistic opportunity to prove my case. If you can talk yourself out of any proof I offer, then we don't have an argument. Not a real one. But that entitles no one to misrepresent facts. The idea that SIT cannot be shown to not be a language is factually incorrect. It has repeatedly been shown not to be a language and has never been shown to BE a language. The idea that SIT cannot be proved true is incorrect on its face. It can be proved true by demonstrating it's a language, which it always should be. Somehow, these two falsehoods keep resurfacing no matter how many times they are discredited. Um, no. Intellectually dishonest is failing to recognize that no debate begins ” no you can't.” You may shift the blame to me all you want, but you're doing so in a way that is short-sighted and myopic.

If what you produce is indistinguishable from fakery, the burden is on you to find the distinction.

Science can very easily measure the difference between a live body and a dead body. If it's breathing, it's live. If there's activity in the brain, it's live. Linguistics CAN measure whether something spoken is a language (your protestations not withstanding, SIT has been repeatedly shown not to be a language, to the point that when the brain waves were studied, the notion that it is really a language isn't even alleged anymore.