SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[chockfull]

n....barring any glaring inconsistencies we don't have all the needed tools.

That is all I'm pointing out - glaring inconsistencies. Like:

1) Ruling out glossa as a language based on 5 characteristics of a language that pertain to conversational communication when glossa is not conversational by design

2) Criticizing and rejecting some sources like firsthand accounts of tongues being understood because he wasn't there and couldn't question all the people involved, then in his paper using two personal firsthand accounts to illustrate his point.

3) Saying glossa bears NO resemblance to a language in his "defining terms" opening of his paper, then in the very next sentence saying it has phonetic resemblance.

Also, discrediting me for pointing these out might be a little easier if we don't have other published papers out there pointing out some of the same things.

[cman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongues

[geisha779]

Raf,

Are you appealing to the study simply because Samarin is an expert....have you done this? Have you said it is true because he says so? To be honest, I have skimmed a few posts. Is that what you think, it is true because he says so?

Have you examined it with painstaking patience? What page are we on? Pointing out that he is an expert and may have a better understanding when someone with hubris will not consider beyond a certain scope is not an appeal to authority...it is a favor.

There is more than sufficient evidence to believe his claims are true. To reasonable people that usually does suffice. You have proved your point. Chockfull has the right to dismiss anything he wants......but I think it is beginning to border on the absurd.

[Raf]

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?

That's quite a leap of logic. "He found languages he did not know" is an affirmative statement that requires the person making the claim to identify the languages. It is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. And the evidence does not back it up.

You keep referring to Socks and Tom as providing firsthand accounts. At best, their accounts are second hand. They were not the speakers. They were not the understanders. So the best they could tell you firsthand is that the claim was made in front of them. And I can give you 10 times as many people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs. Big whoop. It's useless as proof. You believe it because you want to. I don't believe it because it's not verified in any meaningful way. You can keep repeating it, but that doesn't elevate it to proof.

I get what you're saying about the 5 elements. The problem you still run into is the other elements. Let's take the first item on the list as an example: "vocal auditory channel." It's seen and it's heard. Well, hell, gibberish fits THAT definition. Lots of sneezing and burping fits that definition. Look at number 5: Complete feedback. The speaker hears himself speaking. Again, every case of made up gibberish fits that bill.

In fact, when you look at the five elements that SIT does NOT fit and compare it to the ones it DOES fit, an important factor emerges:

SIT fits every element that can be reproduced by fakery/free vocalization and none of the elements that cannot.

Now, I have to admit, I do not know why Samarin found it necessary to run glossolalia past Hockett's design-features of language. I agree with you; it does not make sense given the nature of glossolalia in the first place. This list seems to be a way of differentiating gorilla grunts from human dialogue, so to speak. It makes no sense here. This could be our lack of understanding of a conversation that's way above our heads. It could be an errant detour of the nature of what we see in Felicitas Goodman (who makes sound linguistic observations but questionable psychological ones). Or it could be something that Samarin details in his later books. Interesting to note that Samarin calls his own application of Hockett's list "superficial" (see top of page 66).

But that doesn't make glossolalia language. "It fits 11 of 16 design features of language," when we see what those features are, tells us as little about them as the fact that it's missing the 5.

This finding actually surprises me. I expected something more satisfying than "the whole list is misapplied to this problem."

It's my belief that this list does nothing for either of our cases. It doesn't prove any relevant point in this discussion.

Your thoughts?

Edited October 20, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Raf,

Are you appealing to the study simply because Samarin is an expert....have you done this? Have you said it is true because he says so? To be honest, I have skimmed a few posts. Is that what you think, it is true because he says so?

Nope. Read the thread. I reached my opinion before I knew who Samarin was. I'm just asking people to be honest.

I only provided linguistic sources because I alluded to them and was asked to supply them. It was never my intention to get into this aspect of the debate. To me, the conversation ends with "these are not known languages." Going into detail about what they are is examining the ink on counterfeit money. Have a good time, but no amount of study will suddenly turn it into real money.

Have you examined it with painstaking patience? What page are we on? Pointing out that he is an expert and may have a better understanding when someone with hubris will not consider beyond a certain scope is not an appeal to authority...it is a favor.

I agree with you, but as he will not, he is in the right in terms of logical discourse. I am compelled to answer on the terms of the discussion.

There is more than sufficient evidence to believe his claims are true. To reasonable people that usually does suffice. You have proved your point. Chockfull has the right to dismiss anything he wants......but I think it is beginning to border on the absurd.

I think we've passed the border and are now undocumented immigrants.

[geisha779]

That is all I'm pointing out - glaring inconsistencies. Like:

1) Ruling out glossa as a language based on 5 characteristics of a language that pertain to conversational communication when glossa is not conversational by design

2) Criticizing and rejecting some sources like firsthand accounts of tongues being understood because he wasn't there and couldn't question all the people involved, then in his paper using two personal firsthand accounts to illustrate his point.

3) Saying glossa bears NO resemblance to a language in his "defining terms" opening of his paper, then in the very next sentence saying it has phonetic resemblance.

Also, discrediting me for pointing these out might be a little easier if we don't have other published papers out there pointing out some of the same things.

I will regret this....I absolutely know it.

Glossa is not conversational by design? How so?

You fault him for rejecting firsthand claims and then for accepting them.....which is it?

Something, can have a phonetic resemblance to a language and not be defined as a language. Why is this problematic for you?

[Raf]

Also, discrediting me for pointing these out might be a little easier if we don't have other published papers out there pointing out some of the same things.

Ok, put up. Please, point me to these other published papers, which started out as Samarin's own linguists (false) became other linguists criticizing Samarin (false) and are now just other authors/writers. Document your claim, please.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I will regret this....I absolutely know it.

Glossa is not conversational by design? How so?

You fault him for rejecting firsthand claims and then for accepting them.....which is it?

Something, can have a phonetic resemblance to a language and not be defined as a language. Why is this problematic for you?

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.

[geisha779]

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.

I am not the one saying SIT is a private prayer language. The nature of prayer is conversational.

[Raf]

That is all I'm pointing out - glaring inconsistencies. Like:

1) Ruling out glossa as a language based on 5 characteristics of a language that pertain to conversational communication when glossa is not conversational by design

That is not the only basis on which he rules out glossa as language.

2) Criticizing and rejecting some sources like firsthand accounts of tongues being understood because he wasn't there and couldn't question all the people involved, then in his paper using two personal firsthand accounts to illustrate his point.

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.

3) Saying glossa bears NO resemblance to a language in his "defining terms" opening of his paper, then in the very next sentence saying it has phonetic resemblance.

Madame Tussaud has a collection of figures resembling famous people. That doesn't make it them. Vincent Price, on the other hand...

[chockfull]

I will regret this....I absolutely know it.

Glossa is not conversational by design? How so?

You fault him for rejecting firsthand claims and then for accepting them.....which is it?

Something, can have a phonetic resemblance to a language and not be defined as a language. Why is this problematic for you?

Reposting from where I made this point previously:

Samarin continued:

Next, Samarin delves into the meat of things - linguists / phonetics specialists definitions of attributes of a language. I don't want to retype all of them - they are found on p. 66 of the Samarin article - http://philosophy-re...Pages_48-75.pdf

I'll list the attributes for discussion sake (read the article for more detail):

1. Vocal-auditory channel

2. Directional reception

3. Rapid fading

4. Interchangeability

5. Complete feedback

6. Specialization

7. Semanticity

8. Arbitrariness

9. Discreteness

10. Displacement

11. Openness

12. Tradition

13. Duality (of patterning)

14. Prevarication

15. Reflexiveness

16. Learnability

Samarin writes regarding glossa and these criteria ( I am typing out the references where he says glossa does NOT meet the criteria for a language):

"Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarication (14) and reflexiveness (15).

Semanticity - linguistic signals function in correlating and organizing the life of a community because there are associative ties between signal elements and features in the world

Arbitrariness - the relationship between a meaningful element in a language and its denotation is independent of any physical or geometrical resemblance between the two.

Displacement - Linguistic messages may refer to things remote in time or space, from the site of the communication

Prevarification - Linguistic messages can be false, and they can be meaningless in the logician's sense.

Reflexiveness - In a language, one can communicate about communication."

First of all, if you take SIT at face value as for private prayer ("I pray with understanding, I pray in the spirit") then as described scripturally from my perspective it is NOT a system of communication between humans. It is human to God. So OK, Samarin, it's not a "human" language in that respect, as it doesn't function in correlating and organizing the life of a community like a native language does.

For pretty much all of his other reasons listed, the sole reason they are valid is because whatever the language is spoken is NOT understood. If a tongue is not understood (and the other is not edified unless interpreted - as I Cor. 14 states), then how can you be certain scientifically whether or not the attributes of arbitrariness, displacement, prevarification, or reflexiveness are being met or not? How can you scientifically ascertain those elements not to be met unless you understood the content of the message? Or is Samarin simply running down a checklist to automatically say NO to those elements because he himself doesn't understand the tongue? To me that is NOT a rigorous or logical conclusion from a scientific perspective. It would be a more honest conclusion to say "unless or until the language is understood, we cannot ascertain whether it meets these criteria".

I only provided linguistic sources because I alluded to them and was asked to supply them. It was never my intention to get into this aspect of the debate. To me, the conversation ends with "these are not known languages." Going into detail about what they are is examining the ink on counterfeit money. Have a good time, but no amount of study will suddenly turn it into real money.

No, the conversation ends with you with "these are not known languages" plus "I do not believe the accounts presented where people experienced that they were known languages".

There is more than sufficient evidence to believe his claims are true. To reasonable people that usually does suffice. You have proved your point. Chockfull has the right to dismiss anything he wants......but I think it is beginning to border on the absurd.

And you two have the right to dismiss anything you want, including two firsthand accounts (yes Raf, someone who THEMSELF WAS THERE OBSERVING consists of a firsthand account whether or not they did the speaking despite your attempt to categorize it as something different).

I'm sure I could call both of you some really nice names too. Let me so, so far we have that I'm bordering on the absurd, I have hubris, and a bunch of other nice little snide comments. Let me ask you this, in your emphasis in and continued magnification of the maturity in I Cor. 14, where exactly does your name-calling fit into this?

[chockfull]

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...

Actually one of the most problematic areas of designing a statistical experiment like a hypothesis test is the sample space. In other words, do the people or examples I decide to take a sample of and study accurately represent a statistical sample of the entire population that I am expecting my hypothesis to apply to?

In that respect, tongues in a natural setting where the speaker was unaware they are being recorded are probably the cleanest. Depending on how you want to model the study, you might divide the samples into "church" settings where there also was interpretation / prophecy going on for all to hear, and possibly private prayer life examples too and run the statistics on both sets to see if they present any differences mathematically.

I noted a couple problematic inclusions in Samarin's sample space - both of which were the recording of a medium's conversation with their spirit guide, where there was a different language involved. His inclusion of Christian and non-Christian groups is fine, especially as he is endeavoring to illustrate a non-detectable difference there. The mediums were in his non-Christian samples. I don't have access to his other resources to be able to vet other non-Christian samples.

I understand what Samarin was doing there - simply collecting any available samples of known recordings of people speaking in a language they never learned. With the medium examples, though, there is never a claim of glossa going on there, simply a recorded conversation with a spirit guide. So they should be excluded from any hypothesis test.

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.

You talked to this author and confirmed this? Or is this just an ad-hominem attack?

[Raf]

No, the conversation ends with you with "these are not known languages" plus "I do not believe the accounts presented where people experienced that they were known languages".

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.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

People SIT on TBN all the time, we have it on You tube.....SIT if consistent with scripture should produce a real language, so what is the problem? Someone, somewhere, should recognize them all basically. I don't understand why this is not happening all over the place and the norm. What is the big mystery? Unless it is not real?

If you can't speak in tongues....look this guy will help you to do it. I dare you to watch it.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eFUz1Ve7WeE" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[Raf]

Aaaaaaaack! Make it stop! Make it stop!!!!

An. Absolute. Crock. Of. Shiite.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

Aaaaaaaack! Make it stop! Make it stop!!!!

An. Absolute. Crock. Of. Shiite.

My God, that was painful. I could only take a couple minutes of it.

[waysider]

Yikes!

[chockfull]

If you can't speak in tongues....look this guy will help you to do it. I dare you to watch it.

Now that looks like a video illustration of Raf's counterfeit $2 bill example. This is the guy that changed what interpretation meant - and magically all followers of his little cult also changed there. No, this couldn't be an example of someone faking it?

Everything about this guy is fake.

[chockfull]

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.

Then by this logic, your assessment of Samarin should be he has no accounts of non-Christian free vocalization. He used 2 mediums as one example, and 2 personal accounts as his other examples.

But it's not. Illogical.

The people involved with the incidents absolutely knew who the other people were. The fact that you don't know them is somewhat irrelevant. It is nobody's burden of proof to demonstrate this to you.

I have heard about a half a dozen accounts similar to this, and have known a few of these accounts where people were in them in the same fellowship. So I know at least one of the stories I heard the facts were corroborated by two separate people. I'm sure the people making the claims on this thread could track down some information, or maybe they couldn't. Either way, they don't seem to feel motivated or compelled to have to do that for YOU.

I'm sure you'll take this to mean it's not proven. That is a very egocentric definition of proof. It has been proven TO OTHERS. The fact it has not been proven TO YOU is not really relevant to everyone else. They determine on their own whether or not they will believe the accounts. The only difference is that most will not state their beliefs in terms of "absolutes" and "facts" assumed to be incontrovertible. You have done this page after page.

You see this is where I start to divurge from the whole scientific proof thing. It's kind of like whether or not people want to believe Jesus was raised from the dead. There is no conclusive proof. There's no proof of the ascencion. There's no proof of the new birth. And you have sincere people vehemently arguing against each one of these things. Yet God leaves it up to each individual's freedom of will to prove it to themselves, to believe it for themselves, to pursue it for themselves.

[Raf]

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?

[waysider]

Here's the difference, Chock.

You can't disprove the resurrection, the ascension, the new birth. You can, on the other hand, for all practical purposes, disprove that speaking in tongues (as we know it today) is a language-producing-action, on a par with what is described in Acts 2. Not 100%, mind you, but, with a very high level of certainty.

[geisha779]

JAL should host a show called World's Wackiest Cults. The man is like a game show host for speaking in tongues.

As much as we like to distance ourselves now.....this is an example of VP's inner circle. This is the guy tagged to teach the Way Corps and was an example of a responsible mature spiritual Christian? He was considered one of the better teachers. That....is frightening.

Did anyone miss the part where he threw Christians under the bus again concerning all their error about SIT? With all his talk about the benefits of tongues. . . . this guy has only lost sanity in the last 40 years. He is still promoting false doctrine. Again, he has claimed SIT is the proof that one is saved. Well, if it is proof than it must be provable. God is not unreasonable.

Christians know they are saved by this..... Jesus is Lord.....not even that we make Him Lord....Jesus is Lord. If we don't know this and desire proof "in the senses realm" then we are not saved. Simple. JAL is dangerous to seeking people.

We don't pay for the Holy Spirit.....Simon wanted to do that and Peter told him to let him and his money rot. Yet, we can't test God by expecting tongues to produce a language? God just overlooked that we paid money to learn how to SIT for proof of Him, as if Jesus isn't enough. He overlooked that we were following a false gospel, worshiping a book, and believing VP was his mouthpiece on earth while axing to absent His Son? This God doesn't mind? Must be a law He can't get around.

Sorry for the derail.... it was just a bit of comic relief. Back to Samarin. :)

[Raf]

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.

[Raf]

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).

[waysider]

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).

Which is why I previously said.......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...