SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

I requote from Chockfull:

No you missed the point. Samarin uses 14 points linguists use to identify something as a language. This was among the only series of my posts that you ignored. In those 14 points he declares glossa to be not compliant on a handful. That handful I clearly highlighted as only applicable to conversational communication aspects of language, which clearly doesn't apply to the basic definition and intent of glossa. So it's circular logic Samarin is using. It's not a language because it's not understood. Well duh.

I find Samarin's obtuse handling of points like this to pretty much invalidate and waste all of the work and talent the man has in linguistics

There is a reason I ignored this, and a reason I am not the one who has been bringing up the linguistic qualities of glossalalic utterances in the first place. There's a reason I am not obsessing over just how good an approximation of real language glossolalia is. And that reason is simply stated thus: They are not human languages. We're not dealing with xenoglossy. If we were, there'd be no need to argue or discuss anything. I'd be proved wrong and we'd be done. The fact that SIT does not produce human languages is enough for me to make my point. You can try to pry all you want out of what it does produce, but you can't argue that it produces a known, human language. The best you can do is reach for a "tongues of angels" type of argument, and the best Samarin can do, on a good day, is rule that out (and I think pointing out that the tongues of angels -- that is, the glossolalia he actually studied and catalogued -- is far less sophisticated than a human language argues against the tongues of angels theory anyway).

So you can revel in the linguistic qualities that DO exist, you can chide him for how he dismisses the qualities that don't exist, but what you are left with remains an utterance that is indistinguishable from uninspired, Godless free vocalization. And (I hesitate to repeat myself) if what you're producing in glossolalia is indistinguishable from what an uninspired free vocalization can produce, then the only difference is the setting in which it is produced!

That's not a difference.

If you're not obligated to articulate and prove the difference between free vocalization and SIT, then I'm not obligated to believe that there is one.

I know, repetitious, right? But unrefuted.

[chockfull]

I do understand and always have said that if God won't cooperate with the studies, we have nothing to discuss. What you cannot do is have it both ways: mine the material for proof of linguistic content in SIT, then dismiss the capacity for linguistics to even study the issue because of the non-cooperation of God. I don't care which side you pick, but you gotta pick one! If, for the sake of argument, you are going to allow for the idea that glossolalia can be studied by a linguist, then you have to allow also for the fact that the linguist may know a little more about his subject matter than you do.

I don't know if I'm trying to have it both ways. I am investigating scientific research out there on the subject to see what light it shines on the topic. I think it's a dishonest scientific approach to not present the consideration that when trying to measure God, He may not cooperate. If that limitation is not presented in the research it has a major flaw. I do have a side, I am just evaluating sources and trying to be objective about what they say. I do allow that a linguist like Samarin knows more than I do about linguistics. However, that does not necessarily mean that Samarin knows more than me about designing standard statistical proof type hypothesis testing experiments or evaluating them or finding flaws in them. I wouldn't know that for a fact without meeting with him, but I suspect from what I see in his studies that he may have not had a great deal of formal training in that aspect of research. Just because a man is adept and educated in one area does not mean that automatically translates to all areas.

But beyond credentials, research is intended to be presented to and evaluated by an interested audience. It is not beyond reproach - that is an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It is intended to be evaluated. And Samarin's work in the one article I read I find some flaws in. And it's interesting to note that I am not alone. We have others publishing papers citing his work and saying similar things - that his conclusions are incongruent with his findings.

You don't have to accept Samarin's findings. I'm fine with that. But citing his report and disagreeing with his conclusion is rather disingenuous: you are not better qualified to interpret his findings than he was. And the fact that every named linguist who has studied the same thing has reached the same conclusion is a testament to that fact.

The problem I have with Samarin is not his findings. His work on attempting statistical analysis on p. 61-66 is I feel ahead of his time. He brings up many valid points, and many valid considerations. My issue with Samarin is the conclusions he draws from his findings. They are simply not supported. That is not disingenuous at all. To me that is pointing out the obvious.

You aren't doing him any favors. All you have been doing in the last 10 pages or so is calling me disingenuous for pointing out flaws, and continuing to repeat again and again your opinion that glosssa "is not a language" and that people were "faking it", or more PC terms. If you think Samarin's work should stand on its own, then maybe instead of saying just "OK" for the main detail point of discussion you should try and dig into it and see whether what I brought up seems to hold water or not. That's that part you should be discussing, not another long diatribe on your opinion on the matter. I think by now if anyone reading this thread is not familiar with your opinion on the matter, then they may never be.

Now, we do have unnamed linguists provided by Sherrill. But accepting their word is problematic on a number of fronts.

1. We don't know who they are.

2. We don't know that their findings are accurately reported.

3. Assuming they are credible and the reports accurate, we obliterate the notion that God won't cooperate with a study. This is a problem, because their findings appear impossible to duplicate, often a clear indication that their conclusions are flawed. [unless, of course, they studied the only known genuine samples of the real thing].

If it's OK I'll get back to Sherrill in a bit. I need to reread.

You keep getting on me for repeating myself, and I suppose that's ok. But how different is it from the opposite position, which demands acceptance on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, distorts the clear meaning of scripture to make a testable premise untestable, and retreats to "you gotta take it on faith" whenever its back is against the wall? You can repeat THAT litany as many times as you like, and it doesn't validate SIT one whit.

Well, I for one don't demand your acceptance of tongues. I'm trying to research some of the scientific sources with you to see what we can learn from them. I don't feel I'm distorting clear meaning of scripture. I have a position on my beliefs related to scripture, and that is not universally held by all. I'm comfortable with that. To me, since the premise of tongues involves what just about everyone says is either a "spiritual gift" or "spiritual manifestation" with the key word there being spiritual, then there is an element that probably is not measurable by senses realm scientific tools. My opinion on the matter is that I can only prove SIT to myself. And I can share experiences, dig in to science, discuss etc.

I don't believe Socks' story. I don't believe Tom's story in doctrinal. I invite them both to prove it. But if you want me to accept that this miracle took place, you're going to have to do a little better than unnamed speakers and unnamed hearers removed from the present by 40 years and a continent or two. "I heard someone speak, who wasn't me. Someone else, who wasn't me, says they understood what was spoken. We were all amazed. I can't name any of them and couldn't find them with a detective kit and a Yahoo map." That would NOT be accepted in a court of law to establish the truth of what happened, and if we can't agree on that, then you don't know the slightest thing about the court system.

The evidence for UFO abduction is just as reliable and a heck of a lot more widespread.

I am not trying to force you to accept those accounts as proof. I am just pointing out that we are reading research from people who are citing sources that are no more substantiated than either of those stories. So as such, they have to be treated with equal weight. Samarin's friend he talked to is not in a different category. And I'm sorry that for you firsthand testimony doesn't carry the same weight it does with everyone else. There is really no logical response or scientific response that I can present for a "I don't believe it" response. That is in the same category as the "take it on faith" argument.

There is a reason I ignored this, and a reason I am not the one who has been bringing up the linguistic qualities of glossalalic utterances in the first place. There's a reason I am not obsessing over just how good an approximation of real language glossolalia is. And that reason is simply stated thus: They are not human languages. We're not dealing with xenoglossy. If we were, there'd be no need to argue or discuss anything. I'd be proved wrong and we'd be done. The fact that SIT does not produce human languages is enough for me to make my point. You can try to pry all you want out of what it does produce, but you can't argue that it produces a known, human language. The best you can do is reach for a "tongues of angels" type of argument, and the best Samarin can do, on a good day, is rule that out (and I think pointing out that the tongues of angels -- that is, the glossolalia he actually studied and catalogued -- is far less sophisticated than a human language argues against the tongues of angels theory anyway).

So you can revel in the linguistic qualities that DO exist, you can chide him for how he dismisses the qualities that don't exist, but what you are left with remains an utterance that is indistinguishable from uninspired, Godless free vocalization. And (I hesitate to repeat myself) if what you're producing in glossolalia is indistinguishable from what an uninspired free vocalization can produce, then the only difference is the setting in which it is produced!

There is a reason you ignored this? And your reason is to restate your opinion as fact? Come on, now. If it really is fact, then it will hold up to the same scrutiny you are asking people with the other side's opinion on to subject tongues to.

That's not a difference.

If you're not obligated to articulate and prove the difference between free vocalization and SIT, then I'm not obligated to believe that there is one.

I know, repetitious, right? But unrefuted.

There is absolutely nothing about restating your opinion on a matter that refutes anything at all.

[waysider]

What rationale could there be for God refusing to cooperate and assuming an elusive position? Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of the scriptures that declare He never changes? What about the scriptures that say He never lies? It seems like He would be contractually obligated to deliver what was offered.....unless we're misunderstanding whatever it was that was offered.

[chockfull]

What rationale could there be for God refusing to cooperate and assuming an elusive position? Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of the scriptures that declare He never changes? What about the scriptures that say He never lies? It seems like He would be contractually obligated to deliver what was offered.....unless we're misunderstanding whatever it was that was offered.

The rationale would be that testing would be a form of tempting God. In Jesus temptations he was encouraged to throw himself off a cliff to prove that God would catch him.

[waysider]

The rationale would be that testing would be a form of tempting God. In Jesus temptations he was encouraged to throw himself off a cliff to prove that God would catch him.

That sounds more like a rationalization than rationale. Based on that, one could argue that prayer is tempting God. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying one could argue that premise.

Edited October 19, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

The other rationale would be that if tongues is designed for 2 purposes:

1) private prayer life

2) prayer meeting / meeting where interpreted

Then using it outside of those purposes, for example, in a test to prove whether or not they are languages, is not using it according to how it is contractually promised. Thus that use may not involve God energizing it.

[Raf]

It's getting a little tedious to watch facts getting dismissed as my opinion.

SIT does not produce known languages. That's a fact, not my opinion.

What SIT does produce is linguistically indistinguishable from competent free vocalization with no pretense of divine inspiration. That is a fact, not an opinion.

If they produce the same thing, then my point, while not proved to your satisfaction (because you've made it clear that no amount of proof I provide will suffice), is still made as strongly as possible within the limitations of my ability to prove it.

But go ahead, dismiss it as my opinion if it makes you happy.

[geisha779]

What rationale could there be for God refusing to cooperate and assuming an elusive position? Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of the scriptures that declare He never changes? What about the scriptures that say He never lies? It seems like He would be contractually obligated to deliver what was offered.....unless we're misunderstanding whatever it was that was offered.

Ironically, in TWI we used them as a marketing tool.

I am stumped. It seems to be one of the clearer purposes for SIT....Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. Apparently God didn't have an issue with people hearing them 2000 years ago.... as is evidenced by the accounts in Acts. I am not sure why He would hide them now because someone actually wants to hear and understand them.

If something is actually the proof then it has to be able to be proven.

[waysider]

The other rationale would be that if tongues is designed for 2 purposes:

1) private prayer life

2) prayer meeting / meeting where interpreted

Then using it outside of those purposes, for example, in a test to prove whether or not they are languages, is not using it according to how it is contractually promised. Thus that use may not involve God energizing it.

I think I see the disconnect.

In the first example you gave, it's God that's being tested.

In the second example, it's not God being tested, it's tongues.

[chockfull]

It's getting a little tedious to watch facts getting dismissed as my opinion.

SIT does not produce known languages. That's a fact, not my opinion.

What SIT does produce is linguistically indistinguishable from competent free vocalization with no pretense of divine inspiration. That is a fact, not an opinion.

If they produce the same thing, then my point, while not proved to your satisfaction (because you've made it clear that no amount of proof I provide will suffice), is still made as strongly as possible within the limitations of my ability to prove it.

But go ahead, dismiss it as my opinion if it makes you happy.

So I presented a series of posts where Samarin compares SIT to elements of known languages. He himself concedes that of the 14 presented, he finds differences on only 5. I presented in those posts a rebuttal of his 5 differences. This discussion and the facts surrounding it are key to Samarin's findings on whether or not SIT are languages.

You refuse to discuss this, retreating back to repeating over and over again "SIT does not produce known languages. That's a fact, not my opinion".

Who are you trying to convince here, yourself?

I think I see the disconnect.

In the first example you gave, it's God that's being tested.

In the second example, it's not God being tested, it's tongues.

In the second example, it is God's energizing of tongues that's being tested.

Edited October 19, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

Oh for Pete's sake. If he found known human languages, what were they?

Really tedious.

[Raf]

Back on my phone, so if you want me to really examine the ink on the counterfeit $2 bills Samarin studied, it'll have to wait. Possibly for past the weekend. That'll give you time to catch up on Sherrill and offer your thoughts.

[waysider]

In the second example, it is God's energizing of tongues that's being tested.

Not really....You can take God completely out of the picture and still test to see if genuine languages are being produced. It doesn't have to include any sort of "spiritual" aspect whatsoever.

[Raf]

It's already been determined that glossolalia and free vocalization produce the same thing linguistically. If glossolalia produces an unknown language, then linguistically, we are saying that so does faking it. Makes no sense. But somehow we now have to prove what's already been peer reviewed and has stood the tests applied by other linguists.

But if it avoids the appeal to authority, then I guess it's worth it. What's frustrating is that when I show again that Samarin has been oversimplified and misrepresented (his repeatedly stated and increasingly blunt conclusions are a good predictor of what we will inevitably find), it still won't be good enough because no amount of proof is ever going to be good enough. Why am I doing this again?

[waysider]

"Why am I doing this again?"

I saw a man beating his head against the wall.

I said, "Doesn't that hurt?".

"Yes", he said, "but it feels so good when I stop".

Edited October 20, 2012 by waysider

[waysider]

I'll say this, if SIT represents real languages, Wierwille's tongue must have been from a very primitive people. What sort of language only has 6 or 7 words?

[Raf]

Track record so far:

We were quoted an abstract wherein Samarin calls SIT a language. It was in quotes and the assertion was refuted.

We were told Samarin's own linguists disputed his conclusion. They didn't.

We were then told Poythress was quoting other linguists reviewing Samarin's work. It wasn't Poythress. Then we were told it was Landry citing linguists critiquing Samarin. But the linguists cited were quoted seven years before Samarin's book was published. Then we were told it was other authors disputing Samarin's findings. It was other suthors, but impossible to tell whether they quoted Samarin favorably or unfavorably, considering that their quote of Samarin was in turn quoted by a college kid writing a paper for his religion class. Did they quote Samarin out of context? Did the college kid quote the authors (one of whom is a practicing tongues-speaker - no bias there) out of context? We don't know. Since I do have access to Malony and Lovekin's book, I'll pick it up from the library so we can cut out the middleman and determine what they really were saying about Samarin.

Next it's implied that criticism of Samarin is plentiful. Number of works cited in support of this assertion: 0.

Seriously, don't you get tired?

Now we're told Samarin was so biased we can't take his conclusion seriously, even though everyone who studies the subject, Christian and non Christian alike, cites him favorably. I think I know how this chapter ends...

Edited October 20, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Chockfull: how about a deal? You buy Sherrill's book. I'll buy Samarin's. We compare notes here.

I'd offer to reverse it, but Samarin is 3x as much $, so I'll volunteer to take the bigger financial hit.

[Raf]

I'll say this, if SIT represents real languages, Wierwille's tongue must have been from a very primitive people. What sort of language only has 6 or 7 words?

Amusing, but cheap shot. At this stage of the discussion, TWI in general and Wierwille in particular have been so discredited that picking on them is the equivalent of employing the straw man fallacy.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

The other rationale would be that if tongues is designed for 2 purposes:

1) private prayer life

2) prayer meeting / meeting where interpreted

Then using it outside of those purposes, for example, in a test to prove whether or not they are languages, is not using it according to how it is contractually promised. Thus that use may not involve God energizing it.

I'm actually ok with that premise. The problem is that tongues recorded in worship settings and submitted for later review account for at least some of the samples we've been discussing. Seems there that God shuts the power off whenever a recorder is turned on... Without telling the speaker. In those cases, the speaker senses nothing different, feels just as strongly about praising God, but is, if God is not involved, faking it.

So if God is not cooperating, we learn that real SIT and faked SIT feel exactly the same to the SITter.

Hmmm. Feel the same. Produce the same thing linguistically. But my belief that they ARE the same is somehow presumptuous and unwarranted...

[geisha779]

Is it an appeal to authority "fallacy" when someone is in fact a legitimate authority and there is a consensus of expert opinion? I don't think so...doesn't there need to be "significant" dispute among experts? Doesn't the expert need to shown bias or prejudicial?

How does appealing to a classic and highly regarded study, an actual expert linguist, and a consensus of opinion constitute a fallacy? The "fallacy" seems to be relying on our own limited understanding in a specific and highly concentrated field like linguistics to refute their claims.

I am just saying, I don't think that what has happened here qualifies as an appeal to authority "fallacy". It is an appeal or reliance on authority.....we can't be experts in everything and part of how we learn is to lean on experts and studies. At least in my world it is......

Now reading back I can't find where someone claimed this....I thought I read it?

Just an aside, many Pentecostals and charismatic types teach there are actually two kinds of tongues. One for corporate worship and one for devotional private prayer. Just thought that was interesting. . . . and convenient.

Edited October 20, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

Fallacy just means its presented as proof but doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean the person employing it is wrong. Chockfull is basically demanding that I retrace Samarin's steps to show that his conclusions are, in fact, consistent with his findings. I have no doubt Samarin's findings are justified. But Chockfull's challenge is valid: if the findings are justified, then it should be possible, if not easy, to prove it.

(That last sentence is not universally applicable. The more complicated the subject, the less easy it is to prove, even though it may be right. Like quantum mechanics. Not easy to show at all. But nonetheless true. So the question here is, is linguistics easy enough a subject that retracing Samarin's steps will be easy, or is it complicated enough that it will be tough, though not impossible, to explain? Don't know the answer to that.)

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of time because WHEN we show Samarin is correct, it still will be rejected as biased and not proving anything. The opposing side's argument is predetermined by design to conclude that I can't prove my case. Therefore, no amount of offered proof will ever be enough.

In my view, that's not faith. It's wishful thinking. I speak here for myself, why I do not accept this on faith.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

Fallacy just means its presented as proof but doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean the person employing it is wrong. Chockfull is basically demanding that I retrace Samarin's steps to show that his conclusions are, in fact, consistent with his findings. I have no doubt Samarin's findings are justified. But Chockfull's challenge is valid: if the findings are justified, then it should be possible, if not easy, to prove it.

(That last sentence is not universally applicable. The more complicated the subject, the less easy it is to prove, even though it may be right). Like quantum mechanics. Not easy to show at all. But nonetheless true. So the question here is, is linguistics easy enough a subject that retracing Samarin's steps will be easy, or is it complicated enough that it will be tough, though not impossible, to explain? Don't know the answer to that.)

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of time because WHEN we show Samarin is correct, it still will be rejected as biased and not proving anything. The opposing side's argument is predetermined by design to conclude that I can't prove my case. Therefore, no amount of offered proof will ever be enough.

In my view, that's not faith. It's wishful thinking.

Yes, I appreciate that, but that sounds like an appeal to a misleading authority having you retrace Samarin's findings to see if they are justified. An appeal to authority fallacy is when some one who is appealed to is not an expert or is shown to be bias or prejudicial isn't it?

The Nizkor Project has a great definition......

You, Chockfull, or I cannot validate, justify, or disprove Samarin's conclusion....barring any glaring inconsistencies we don't have all the needed tools. This is why we have things like peer review and defense of dissertation.

Chockfull, you, or I are free to read a study and discuss what we feel its merits and detraction's might be....but we do so with limited understanding. It is just a discussion among novices. Albeit more proficient after reading Samarin, which I think is the point of such a study.

Well done for bringing this to light....it has helped to educate me and others, it is probably something I would not have stumbled upon myself.. . . . but, what we let educate us or what we push against and what we decide to believe is based on the individual. There are way too many factors to settle the issue except for us as individuals.

Your presentation has spoken to me and it has clarified things which need clarification and for that I am grateful, but I think you are absolutely correct.....you will not be able to prove your argument to everyone's satisfaction. That doesn't mean you haven't already proven it. You have.

Edited October 20, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

Geisha, you have a mistaken definition of the appeal to authority fallacy. Let me try to explain, because Chockfull is citing it correctly.

An appeal to authority says proposition A is true because Dr. E, an expert in the field, says it's true.

Now, proposition A may in fact be true, but it's not true just because Dr. E says it's true.

It's like in medicine. Doctor says you have cancer. First thing he tells you is... Get a second opinion. Why? Because you want the results of the test confirmed by an independent source. You go to 10 doctors and they all tell you the same thing, then you have diminished the likelihood that they are all wrong (you'll never reduce it to zero, but at some point you're getting chemo or some other treatment or you gonna die).

In this case, Samarin says in no uncertain terms that SIT does not produce a known language, and that what it does produce is similar to real language only in very limited ways (his words). I agree with you that Samarin's work has withstood the test of peer review. He is cited as an authority on the subject by Christian and non Christian alike. To me, that decreases the odds that he's wrong. But it will, alas, never be reduced to zero. So here we are. Chockfull is challenging Samarin's conclusion here. Responding to that argument by merely saying Samarin's an expert in this field and we are not doesn't actually prove anything, so Chockfull, within every logical right, is not accepting it.

Fine. It is incumbent on me to show why Chockfull's dismissal of Samarin's conclusion is unwarranted, and I have to do so without merely relying on Samarin.

An efficient use of time? Not in the least. But fair game? Afraid so.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Oh for Pete's sake. If he found known human languages, what were they?

Really tedious.

He found languages he did not know. He was evaluating whether or not he would consider them languages based upon 14 characteristics linguists agree on that constitute a language. He found 5 of those characteristics not present. My contention is that is simply because those 5 characteristics constitute the conversational aspect of language, of which tongues is not designed for conversation.

No, where we found human languages that are known are on the two firsthand accounts given. You know, the ones you refuse to believe?