Raf

Ok, so we're now at the point of this being a mental exercise. Cool deal. I'm game. Thoughts on the design-features list? Did I represent you correctly? I know I haven't dealt with everything you've written. Is there anything you insist I get back to?

Ok, another long boring post alert. I promised a more detailed look at the criteria for the design features of language, and here it is: Looking a bit more closely at Hockett's 16 design features of language and Samarin's use of it as applied to glossolalia, I have to admit that I'm at a loss as to what Samarin was even getting at. There are some things that need to be explicitly pointed out, however. First, Samarin says he excludes glossolalia as language "primarily" (his word) because it fails to meet the communication features on Hockett's list. For this, Chockfull chides Samarin and calls him "Captain Obvious." I think Chockfull missed the point. In this case, Samarin is First Mate on the Good Ship Obvious, of which Hockett is the Captain. The communication features of glossolalia DO exist in theory, but they are immeasurable because we would need both sides of the communication to be able to measure it. In other words, we need God to somehow, tangibly, let the investigator know that the message was received and understood. No one is alleging that this takes place on a level we can dispassionately observe. So there is simply no way to make any determination of what the absence of evidence (as opposed to disproof) shows us. So as far as THAT observation is concerned, Chockfull is 100 percent correct. However (and this is a BIG however), I was left with the impression after reading Chockfull's post that glossolalia did in fact fit the other design criteria, and that was offered as some indication that Samarin had indeed found a language but failed to recognize it. There is a distinct possibility I'm misunderstanding or misreading Chockfull. If I am, I apologize. I am proceeding as if I understood him correctly. The truth is, SIT does NOT fit many of the other design features of language, nor can it, and Samarin never claims it does. When we look at the list, there are easily definable features that SIT DOES fit, but in the same way gibberish and free vocalization fit. I've made reference to a couple already and will go into a tad more detail now. My reasons for finding the qualities useless to this discussion are in brackets. * They are audible sounds coming from your mouth. [but we can say that about SIT, fakery, gobbledy-gook, gibberish and snoring]. * They are spoken by someone with the intent that someone else hears them. [but the intent of the speaker is irrelevant to the question at hand. It testifies to the sincerity of the SITter, not the objective content of the utterance]. * Rapid fading: All linguistic signals are evanescent. [Excuse me while I whip this out... my dictionary, that is... Ok, so once you finish speaking, the sound goes away (unlike, say, a beacon signal, which is recurring and contains information, but is not a language). This quality is true of every utterance, whether speaking with the understanding, SIT, free vocalization, gibberish, etc. MAJOR "no duh."] * Interchangeability: "Adult members of any speech community are..." [i stopped reading right there. SIT is not a speech community, and therefore this quality is not applicable to SIT. * Specialization: [Without boring you, this looks like involves the biological mechanics of speech. It tells us nothing about the intrinsic quality of SIT as language]. * Semanticity and * Arbitrariness [both of these require a working knowledge of the vocabulary of the words spoken, and a knowledge of vocabulary is not alleged in SIT]. * Discreteness: [i’m not quite clear what this is saying, but it appears unfair to apply it to SIT because it requires an understanding of a message, and SIT doesn’t allege understanding]. * Displacement: Messages may refer to things remote in time and place… [unfair to apply to SIT for reasons I hope are obvious by now]. * Openness: new terms are coined freely and easily [unfair to apply to SIT]. * Tradition: Language is passed down by teaching and learning [unfair to apply to SIT]. * Duality: [Key here is that it requires a knowledge of the grammar of the utterance being spoken. The EXISTENCE of such grammar is in question, and the knowledge of it is unattainable unless the language is identified and known]. * Prevarication: The message can be false or logically meaningless. [irrelevant to SIT, whose CONTENT is unknown, never mind its veracity or lack thereof]. * Reflexive: we can communicate about communication. [irrelevant to SIT] * Learnability: Self-defined [And clearly irrelevant]. So, far from Samarin finding that glossolalia contains all the elements of language except those of communication, I think it’s more clear that this list has no application to determining SIT as language whatsoever. It is unfair to use it to dismiss SIT as language in the context of our discussion, and it most certainly cannot be used to prove SIT is a language because it requires logical leaps beyond SIT’s definition to draw that conclusion. The question then becomes, well what the heck is Samarin doing here? And that’s going to take me a little more reading to figure out. For my purposes (and for the purposes I think are intrinsic to the discussion we’re having on this thread), the issue we’re looking at is not Hockett’s design features (which, I remind you, I did not bring up or consider relevant until pressed to do so), but rather Samarin’s reasons for dismissing SIT as xenoglossia. He does so on terms unrelated to Hockett’s list (see pgs 50, 52-55, and note that by his definition, a person seeking to prove a genuine Christian case of xenoglossia fits the definition of "parapsychologist." It took me a few readings to get that). The notion that SIT is a known language or a human language unknown to the linguists who have studied the phenomenon may have some merit in theory, but the more linguists look at the subject, the less credible that objection becomes. We have been focusing on Samarin because we have access to a complete detailed article. For other linguists, he have conclusions and findings but little access to how they got there.

And yes, our debate is futile. No amount of proof we present can persuade you, unrepeatable anecdotes won't persuade me, so what's the point, right? Well, I do appreciate the intellectual challenge to my position. Plus I think you spotted a decent flaw in Samarin's presentation that works to both our benefit: it's silly to exclude SIT as a language using Hockett's 16 criteria, but it would be equally ridiculous to INCLUDE SIT as a language on those same criteria. It seems the whole list is useless when applied to this purpose. I wouldn't have seen that if you didn't press the issue (FYI; not done examining the list yet. Some of the items went right over my head even after several readings. So I reserve the right to amend my opinion as I understand the list better, assuming any growth in understanding). So futile, yes, if we're looking to change each other's minds. But I'll bet we each have readers who are valuing this effort. Except Excy. Excy is seriously tired of this carp.

The more I understand Poythress, the more latitude I give him in his presentation. His paper is not a study in the same way Samarin's is. He's reviewing studies and presenting pastoral/theological implications. In that sense, he is being exceedingly fair and open-minded. Excessively fair, in my view, but I'm looking at the findings, not the theology. You need to recall that I had not fully read any of these before I shared them on this thread. Only through studying have we understood exactly who was saying what, and on what basis to consider it. If Poythress (who is a linguist, if I am not mistaken) were writing in his capacity AS a linguist, the things he said would be indefensible. But because he us writing as a theologian to the church, his decision to be non judgmental has to be appreciated on its own terms. I think if you pinned him down and separated the linguist from the pastor, you would see two starkly contracting conclusions.

Oh, it doesn't? Whew!

Nicely put, WW, although Chockfull has cause to dispute your analysis of the situation as applied to HIS experience. Nonetheless, you reach the correct destination. It is indeed fairly easy to break my hypothesis into segments and investigate it a piece at a time. Am I justified in throwing all SIT under the bus. Would I be justified if I exempted Pentecostal or other Christian groups from the accusation of fakery? Would it be justifiable if I only exempted TWI, CES, or some other group's practice? Or am I 100% wrong, and the only thing I can prove is that some people do indeed fake it. The premise of this thread is multilayered. It assumes there was fakery, perhaps even lots of it. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But the poll question opens a lot of layers. All but one of the responses can be seen as a hypothesis that is subject to testing. The first, second and third have, to my satisfaction, all been disproved (which is not to say that all SIT is false, but only that if we assume it is true, it's fairly plain no one seems to have a very firm grasp on it that stands up to analysis. Best we can say is SIT is possible. The final response not only has not been proved, but cannot be. It is, in my opinion, the most in line with the observable evidence. There is a Biblical proposition that fits what the evidence shows us, but there seems to be little willingness on anyone's part to entertain that Biblical interpretation. (But I'm the proud one).

The notion that God is not cooperating may explain why linguists don't find a language, but it bolsters my argument in another, objective way. I've indicated it before, but let's get explicit about it. If God is not cooperating, then: 1. Everyone who participated, lied DURING the time observed by the experiment 2. Did not appear to realize they were lying, which teaches us that 3. There is no way for even the person SITting to tell fakery from the real thing as an experience. In effect, this would prove that it's possible to fake SIT without knowing it. We establish that the sincerity of the person claiming the experience is insufficient to establish that the experience is genuine. If God IS cooperating, we should see languages. We don't. So whether or not God cooperates, my position appears bolstered.

I actually got it the first time. Wes Craven's New Nightmare on Elm Street

When it comes to the studies, I believe that is all we have been doing in the first place, which is why I find it so amusing/frustrating that we're poring over it to look for how closely it resembles language. Ink on a counterfeit bill. If I'm right, every subject is faking it. If you're right, God is not energizing it and therefore everyone is faking it.

Tom in Doctrinal. I link to it in the reading room. Anyone know how to get a crying baby to sleep?

Correct. Glad you found it for yourself rather than stopping at def. 2 and declaring all empirical research to be my opinion.

Seriously? If SIT is not an empirical claim, nothing is. Please. I've been saying this all along. If Biblical SIT is not an empirical claim, why are we looking at studies for evidence of languages?

I promised my last post on the UFO comparison would BE my last post on that comparison, and i shall stick to my word.

Once you make an empirical claim, which SIT is, you forfeit the right to hide behind faith as an excuse for why the empirical claim does not produce what it claims to produce. I do not believe I am the one doing the fearmongering here. I say you can reject modern SIT and continue to embrace Christ. You're implying that once you do, you open the door to rejecting Christ, the new birth, the resurrection and God. Yet millions of Christians reject SIT while embracing Christ. All I'm saying.

Oh for petes sake... Chris Evans Fantastic Four Jessica Alba. There. It's not cheating anymore. Have at it!

Yes, but a certain other never-dying thread hasn't been heard from in years, so...

It need not be a slippery slope is what I'm saying. Slippery slope is another logical fallacy.

Sorry to be so blunt, but constantly bringing up doubts about the resurrection or the new birth or the existence of God is just another logical fallacy that stops people from engaging in self reflection for fear that it will get them to question God and Christ himself (or themselves: pick the theology you hold. Doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion).

Ok, look, last time I'm going to say this. The first person accounts of people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs vastly outnumbers those who claim a true blue SIT "I heard someone else who heard someone else and recognized the language and understood it in my presence" experience. If their sincerity requires that I believe them, and they have no burden to prove their claims, then I have no more reason to reject the UFO abductions as I have to reject the fantastical tongues claims. I reject them both on the same basis. If that bothers you on a faith level, I'm sorry. It shouldn't. There are oodles of Christians who are unsatisfied with the used car salesman "you're just gonna hafta trust me on this: looks, feels, sounds and produces the same result as a phony, but take my word for it; it's real" con job posited by the modern SIT movement. This doesn't even compare to the resurrection or the new birth. The Bible describes something specific and clear. Modern SIT twists and distorts the obvious meaning of the text for the sole purpose of covering up the fact that it doesn't produce what the Bible says it should. No, I have not proved my case that it's all a lie. But more importantly, modern tongues, unsubstantiated anecdotes not withstanding, hasn't proven a single case to be true. At the very least, if we can return to the original point of this thread, fakery was widespread, and anyone who did fake it should know that it's liberating to come clean. You may have fooled quite a few people, but you never fooled to one who mattered most. I would that ye all came clean. I'd also like a pony and a winning lottery ticket.

Impreszions as they come. First up, I don't quite see the pount you're making in regards to Samarin and non Christian free vocalization. It was Poythress who said they were linguistically indistinguishable. Where did I ever make a big deal, or even a little deal, of Samarin and non Christians?

Aaaaaaaack! Make it stop! Make it stop!!!! An. Absolute. Crock. Of. Shiite.

Ok, but I suspect I will want to keep samarin's book in the end...

We have no accounts where people experienced that they were known languages. We have two accounts where people experienced that other people claimed they were known languages. But we do not know who or where these other people are. With respect to the people telling the stories, the stories themselves are unverifiable. UFO abduction accounts have greater frequency, greater identification of primary sources, and just as much verifiable credibility. You can keep citing these stories as proof, but I am on more solid ground rejecting them than you are trying to shove them back into the conversation as evidence or proof. It just ain't. If you refuse to believe Landry was a college kid at the time he wrote his piece, nothing I tell you will suffice as proof. He was. I arrived at the conclusion by comparing his resume to the date on the paper. I know, that's not enough proof for you. Because nothing is. My comment is not an attack on Landry. It is an observation that we have a quote of a quote coming to us from a person whose credibility as a researcher and presenter of research is not established. Those are facts, not opinions. I prefer to cut Landry out of it entirely and look at what Malony and Lovekin say directly.

That is not the only basis on which he rules out glossa as language. Please clarify this statement. What were the firsthand accounts, and what did they illustrate. Illustrating a point and proving it are two different things. There's no inconsistency in applying different standards to them. Madame Tussaud has a collection of figures resembling famous people. That doesn't make it them. Vincent Price, on the other hand...

First question is easy. We all agree on it. SIT is not intended to be something I say and you understand. It CAN be, but not as a rule. Second question: he's accusing me of being inconsistent. I'm a little unclear how. Elaboration please, chockfull? Third question: Denial.