Raf

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.

In the short course of this thread, we have erred on who told the story and what language was spoken. What else can go wrong in the telling over 40 years. But I'm supposed to accept the proof.

Was I mistaken? Maybe I meant Socks. No offense to whoever it was what told the story.

I do not accept decades old anecdotal evidence that someone else whose integrity I know nothing about and who has since vanished into history claims to have understood what was spoken in a tongue. The anecdotal evidence for UFO abduction is at least as persuasive and many times more widespread. you're damn right I don't accept that as proof. The spectacular claim that this happened is just as subject to the burden of proof as the larger claim it seeks to prove. It is not mine to disprove. Oh, and knowing a thing or two about courts of law, let me correct your misstatement: these accounts would be tossed as hearsay. Look it up. It might be admitted to indicate that the claim was made, but it would not be admitted to establish the truth of the matter. The witness who spoke in tongues cannot be produced, the witnesses who heard the tongue cannot be produced, and if this thread has proved anything, it has proved that lying about it was widespread. No offense, skyrider.

It's pretty clear that no matter how much I explain the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, some people will take two lines from an internet article to score a point on a thread and ignore everything else in that article and others to continue to shift the burden of proof while accusing the other side of doing so. I'm not the one claiming to perform the amazing stunt. You are. Prove it. No amount of linguistic legerdemain changes that simple fact.

By the way, I do recognize a certain fallacy in my argument related to burden of proof. It is incorrect to say there is no evidence of A, therefore A is not true. A might be true, but the evidence irretrievable or not yet retrieved. I am open to that. After all, I keep saying, my side IS the one that can be disproved. This is on practical terms, unrelated to the normal logical terms of who should have the burden of proof. Take the example I used earlier: There is no evidence that the bogeyman is under my bed. Therefore, the bogeyman is not under my bed. That's enough to convince me. Every parent hopes it's enough to convince their child. I'll bet it's enough to convince you. Now try this: There is no evidence there is life on other planets. Therefore, there is no life on other planets. Hold the phone: that's not necessarily so. There is no evidence of life on other planets for a variety of reasons, but we cannot say with any degree of certainty that there is no life on other planets. It is far better to say: I have no reason to believe there is life on other planets based on the available evidence thus far, but I am open to future evidence persuading me otherwise. Maybe I should cast the SIT discussion in the same manner. I have no reason to believe anyone in the modern church is producing Biblical results and therefore truly engaging in the genuine Biblical practice of speaking in tongues, but I am open to future evidence persuading me otherwise. In fact, I dare you to produce it! Ooh, wine...

The problem with the burden of proof fallacy in terms of this thread is manifold. First, the fallacy does not establish that one side is right and the other wrong. It's more like the agreed upon terms of the discussion. In most logical, rational discussions, it is a rule of thumb that the person making the affirmative claim (which is to say, the person saying something exists or is possible or can be done or is being done) has the burden of proving the claim. It is not incumbent on the opposing side to disprove the claim. One popular writer put it this way. If you told me there was a dragon in your garage, the burden would be on you to prove to me that it was there. If you told me it was an invisible dragon that floated so it left no footprints, breathed a heatless, harmless invisible fire, and that it was non-corporeal so that splashing it with water or paint would not reveal its presence or exact location, then you have presented me with a dragon that is indistinguishable, practically speaking, from something that isn't there. I may not have proved that you have no dragon, but I am nonetheless confident in my belief that your dragon is a figment of your imagination. You have done nothing to persuade me you have a dragon. The problem with THIS thread is, we can't get agreement on who's claiming to have a dragon. Is it you, who claim to bring forth in a human language you've never learned or a secret language known only to Almighty God and His Heavenly Host a message of prayer, praise, edification, exhortation an comfort? Or is it I, the one saying, nah, sorry, what you're doing is actually a very human thing that some call free vocalization. I believe the greater claim is being made by the tongues speaker, and that the burden of proof lies on that person to prove what he is producing is genuine and producing Biblical results (a human language. That's what the Bible describes. Anything less is apologetic backtracking). You may believe the greater claim is being made by me, with some gall challenging something clearly described in the Bible as something God wants us to do and assures us we can do to this day. As such, you believe the burden is on me to prove you are faking it (and that everyone who claims to be speaking in tongues is faking it). But then you establish the terms of the argument in such a way that you will not accept my point until/unless I prove it, but at the same time, you preempt any tools I may use to prove that point. This is why I think you, and not I, are the one claiming to have a dragon. You can speak in tongues, but then you define and redefine SIT in such a way to make it indistinguishable from faking it, and expect me, as a matter of faith, to accept your experience based solely on your faith. You are not, incidentally, even open to the distinct possibility that your interpretation of the scriptures regarding SIT might, in fact, be wrong, which would explain EVERYTHING. That's not confidence. That's rationalization. The Bible says A produces B. You say you're doing A, but you're not producing B. Something's not right here. So you redefine B. Maybe it's not a language, per se. Maybe it's tongues of angels. Fine for one person, I say. Fine for MANY, in fact. But not fine for the majority or all. It is inconsistent with the clear teaching of the Bible: these were supposed to be human languages. Secret, yes, but only because YOU didn't know the language, not because no one on earth did. Maybe it's not a language at all. Maybe it's enough to say it has language-ish qualities. Fine, if that's what you want to believe, but first, it's not what the Bible teaches. Second, it's indistinguishable from someone faking it on purpose. Any Bozo with a working mouth can engage in free vocalization and produce exactly what you produce when you SIT. Tell me again why I should believe in your invisible dragon ability to speak in tongues? At the point where you are compelled to concede that there is no distinguishing what is produced by tongues from what is produced by fakery, I am no longer compelled to take your claim of tongues seriously. Poythress, who still allowed for the possibility that God is at work in glossolalia, nonetheless makes that monumental concession in his study, which was theological and not scientific in nature. He and I part ways at that point. Maybe it is God, still, he suggests. Maybe. But I would expect God to do better than that. And let's be honest: so would you. If SIT had been sold to you as indistinguishable, linguistically, from fakery, you never would have bought it. Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would think I'm making the greater claim. I'm not invoking the power that created the universe as an energizing force in my prayer life. But as you wish. I can argue with your reasoning, but not your right to employ it. Now, am I wrong that SIT should produce a human language? I'm open to that possibility, but honestly, I would be shocked. It seems to me that you have to torture plain language in order to reach that conclusion, when the more obvious answer is that tongues in the Bible were, without exception, known languages (known to someone on earth, not necessarily the speaker). Anyway, I'm babbling and I'm out of beer, which is a crime.

Something crucial to understand here: One reason I cannot prove my position is that the counterposition has made my position impossible to prove. You will accept nothing but a 100 percent sample size, which is of course impossible. Even if I were to get a 100 percent sample size and show that not one person is producing a verifiable language, you have the escape hatch of God's non-cooperation. In other words, even if I proved my case, you would be able to say I have not proved my case. I think that robs you of the ability to draw any conclusions based on my inability to prove my case. On the contrary, you can prove your case with relative ease by producing a language, and I think I am able to draw conclusions from your inability not only to do it yourself, but to find someone who can.

Thanks for giving me time to explain: First, we cannot presume that the argument behind this conversation begins with this thread. Rather, it begins with the assertion both inside and outside TWI that SIT is real in the first place. If I were to start a thread that said "There is no Santa Claus," your reply would not be "prove it." It would probably be more along the lines of "who said there was? You cannot turn invisible by shutting your eyes. Who said I could? You cannot fly (unaided by technology). Who said I could? You cannot speak perfect prayer and praise in a human language unknown to you. Wait a minute, yes I can. See, this conversation does not start with a denial: no, you can't. It starts with an assertion: Guess what I can do! So if we're going to talk about where the burden of proof lies, we have to start with the primary assertion being made. THe primary assertion being made is "I can speak in tongues, just like the Bible says I can." Prove it. "I can't prove it because you wouldn't recognize the language." Let's gather a team of linguists who would recognize whether it IS a language at all, and quite possibly which language. "Well, I speak in tongues of angels." ALL of you speak in tongues of angels? "Well, who said it should be a recognizable language anyway?" The Bible. Acts, Corinthians: Tongues means languages. It does not mean code. If it meant code, God would have called it speaking in code. He called it speaking in tongues. *** You can see how we can continue on this line without a resolution forever, until someone says "you just have to take it on faith" or some other argument-ender that resolves nothing. In my view, the burden of proof remains with those who claim they CAN speak in tongues -- that is, an actual language spoken by some race of humans on earth somewhere or sometime. I've even said I'll accept Tolkienian Elvish, if the speaker can demonstrate he's never read Tolkien nor seen the movies. *** Only after this point do we even start to approach what's being spoken on this thread. Four of the poll options presented are, effectively, thesis statements that are subject to scrutiny and review: The notion that this works the way TWI says it does. The notion that this works the way CES says it does. The notion that this works the way Pentecostals say it does. The notion that it's all a bunch of hooey. That final notion, the one I assert, cannot be proven correct without an impossibly large sample size (100 percent of tongues speakers) and without the cooperation of God, whose participation is not guaranteed. Implicit in adopting this position is the recognition that it cannot be proved with any sense of finality. That's why the burden of proof argument "Raf hasn't proved his case" rings impossibly hollow. Raf shouldn't have to prove his case. Raf is not the one making the claim. Raf is DENYING the claim, and the person who MADE the claim IN THE FIRST PLACE still has the burden to prove it. In the sense that my position is an extreme one (there is no proof, therefore it never happens), I understand the application of a logical fallacy. After all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we can't point to enough evidence of God to satisfy the skeptic does not mean there is no God. However, the absence of evidence that there is no bogeyman under my bed is evidence that there is, in fact, no bogeyman under my bed. In other words, the absence of evidence is an indication that what you're looking for isn't there. It's just not final, definitive proof. I can't finally, definitively prove my position is true. I can only show, as I think I have, that all concrete, testable, falsifiable evidence leans entirely in one direction. (I know, there are linguistic qualities to glossolalia. But those qualities are also present in non-religious free vocalization, so we are forced to agree that the appearance of linguistic qualities in glossolalia prove nothing more than human ingenuity. I therefore repeat: ALL the independently tested evidence leans in one direction). But I have not proved my point, and I can't unless I study every case of SIT, past and present, and secure the cooperation of God. So, you see, the burden of proof never shifted from tongues speakers to skeptics. It is still on you to prove this is a human language. In my view, nothing short will suffice. You may say that I'm being stubborn by insisting that it be a human language. I contend that is what the Bible clearly indicates tongues should be. Any deviation from that, in my opinion, is an attempt to explain why the modern practice is not producing Biblical results.

No, chockfull, your analysis of the logical fallacy is incorrect and quite selective.

I'll let that one slide, chockfull. (this was intended as a reply to an earlier post, not the closest one) Seriously, if the promise of God is that doing A will result in B, and you claim to do A but do not produce B, I don't see where your faith, rather than mine, obligates me to believe you're really doing A.

Impasse

What did you call me? ;)