SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[waysider]

It might be a tumor.

[chockfull]

Nobody on this thread has said

"Since modern SIT is not Biblical SIT, then there's no modern miracles, God doesn't work in people's lives, etc."

Look, for a while I was investigating doctrinal implications here. I never got an answer. My question was "since you claim modern SIT is not Biblical SIT, what changed?" I was looking for some scripture, historical event, etc. that would indicate at this time now you can't SIT any more like they did in Acts.

I zero response on that from the people claiming that it's not the same. Oh, one person referred me to look up a commentary on a guy who explained it through dispensationalism or something.

So it is completely logical to question that if somehow God can "turn off" the power to SIT all of a sudden, without warning, scripture, natural event, then who's to say that random occurance wouldn't also happen with miracles and other power from God?

What's been said is "Modern SIT is not Biblical SIT." Period. NO "therefore."

It's rather DIShonest that this thread has been treated NOT as an honest discussion

about the modern phenomenon of modern SIT, but rather as a referendum on the power

of God in people's lives nowadays.

Look, there's been plenty of discussion on "modern SIT related to Biblical SIT" including a debate over what constitutes "proof". If you don't like the foray into doctrinal questions, then don't discuss them.

I mentioned something to this effect and the poster doing it completely blew it off

and continued to do it.

There are separate threads in Doctrinal for doctrinal related to the verse, and research links. Some people want to discuss doctrinal implications on this thread. If it bothers you, then can you ignore it rather than just expecting everyone to cater to what you want to discuss only?

The whole thing is based on

"If I believe God acts miraculously in people's lives now,

then I have to believe modern SIT is the same as Biblical SIT,

and I have to swallow all claims of supernatural as actual supernatural occurrences."

The reasoning is flawed, as one can see as soon as that's stated outright.

It's not all or nothing.

Sure if you state it in that fashion it's flawed. But stated in another fashion, it's a legitimate question regarding the power of God.

Whatever.

The other thing I find humorous is that whenever I bring up detailed challenges to research such as the last post, and point out what's the difference between good and shoddy research, rather than refute any of that, Raf takes the "I'm going to pick up my toys and go home" tactic.

I guess he thinks maybe readers won't notice that. My bet is they do notice.

[Raf]

Chockfull: Every time I answer you in detail, you LIE and distort my answers and the research on which it is based. Then I have to disentangle your lies and distortions to return to a common ground, but you then start trying to shift the common ground. It's not worth the energy.

I'm glad you find it hilarious. Really. Knock yourself out. You WON! Aren't you HAPPY?

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I can see it now:

"Raf says I won! He admits he's wrong!"

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I know this is Raf's thread, so I respectfully refer this back to Raf to consider decanting any good points onto a new thread so that newbies can pick up.

Otherwise, I will have to consider joining Excie.

I don't think a new thread will cover any new ground. I understand no one wants to go through 60 someodd pages of this stuff, but really, the bottom line is that we've said all that needs to be said, and anyone truly interested in the subject has what they need here. Starting over invites a level of rehashing that I am disinclined to do right now. Hope you understand.

[Raf]

Look, for a while I was investigating doctrinal implications here. I never got an answer. My question was "since you claim modern SIT is not Biblical SIT, what changed?" I was looking for some scripture, historical event, etc. that would indicate at this time now you can't SIT any more like they did in Acts.

I zero response on that from the people claiming that it's not the same.

For those who care about such things: this is what's referred to as a LIE. I DID answer this question. Not definitively. Not with a rock solid "here's what conclusion you should draw." No, that would be dogmatic. I left it wide open. I said it could be a couple of things. Cessationism is one theory. Or maybe it IS available and we're just not doing it right. A number of Biblical responses are possible. But my inability to answer that question with a firm response does not negate the premise that modern SIT and Biblical SIT are demonstrably not the same thing. "Zero response"? ZERO? Lie.

Not satisfied with the responses you did get? That would have been true.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By the way, I reject the assertion that the research we have been reviewing is shoddy. It is not shoddy. The assertion is being made by someone with no interest in seeking the truth. The proposed alternative, even if successfully applied, would be rejected as inconclusive. And I mean BY ME. I do not see a method of developing a sample where the results could satisfy any statistical degree of certainty. It is an impossible task and a waste of time.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[cman]

you guys should stop trying to read minds

you suck at it

haha

[WordWolf]

I really should have stopped and "done the math."

Once we got this post, I had enough information to know this was going to go nowhere as a discussion....

The burden of proof fallacy basically is "whoever said something first or loudest has to prove it".

(snip)

There we had it.

1) Burden of Proof, according to chockfull, is a "FALLACY."

2) Burden of Proof is based, not on the actual claims, but on who spoke first.

3) Volume actually matters as part of the discussion.

It was so demonstrably false I just posted a correction, and never thought what it means when a poster

can actually post that and mean it. Someone who doesn't understand Burden of Proof-

and refuses to understand it now even after it's explained-

is NOT in the discussion to exchange ideas and examine evidence.

They're in for other things. And reasoned discourse is going out the window.

I don't know.

I'll have to read Pete's post carefully. Maybe he can bring something to this discussion that

it's been lacking until now.

Edited October 30, 2012 by WordWolf

[Raf]

I mostly agree with Word Wolf, especially in light of the post he's quoting, but one thing needs clarification: There is no such thing as a burden of proof fallacy, but there IS such a thing as a "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy. Chockfull has both misdefined it and misapplied it to this conversation. He sincerely believes that I have the burden of proof because I started the thread and was "loudest" about it (that second quality has nothing to do with jacks hit).

Simply put, in any debate involving an affirmative claim, the burden of proving that claim falls on the person making it. Chockfull and I honestly disagree on who's making the affirmative claim. I concede that i started the thread, but it takes a special brand of ignorance and denial to assert that i am the one making the affirmative claim here. I am gratified that people looking at this conversation with an identifiable bias against me, that is, people who WANT me to be wrong, recognize that i am not the one making the affirmative claim here. Tongues speakers are. And the burden is on you to prove your claim.

None of the above represents a fallacy. So, so far, Word Wolf is 100% correct.

But SHIFTING the burden of proof IS a fallacy. This happens when the side making the affirmative claim insists on the claim's veracity, despite it being UNproven, until the OTHER side disproves it.

To the untrained eye (ie, Chockfull's) this appears to be what I am doing. I am making a "big fat claim" that modern SIT is not Biblical SIT. Chockfull is asking me to prove it, and my response is that the only way to get to the truth is to disprove my big fat claim. But that interpretation assumes that the claim I am making is an affirmative one. It is not. The claim I am making is a response to a claim made more than a century before this thread even started. It is the original BIG FAT claim, that modern SIT IS Biblical SIT, that is the affirmative claim that has not been proved.

In short, I am NOT asking you to disprove MY claim. I am asking you to PROVE yours. There is a world of difference. People who entered this dialogue wanting me to be wrong have conceded that I am correct in my analysis of the burden of proof issue.

The side that is challenging the affirmative claim has every right to wait for proof, and no responsibility to disprove what hasn't been proved in the first place.

You say you have a dragon in your garage. Prove it. The claim is yours to prove, not mine to disprove.

Lately, Chockfull's gotten clever about shifting the burden of proof, throwing around words like "null hypothesis," "statistics" and "confidence intervals," as if he's got the slightest idea what he's talking about or the slightest intention of honoring a scientific investigation if one is either produced or undertaken. The entire venture he proposes is a shifting of the burden of proof.

Look at his wording:

As a step towards proving your point conclusively, a study COULD state a hypothesis with a null and alternative hypothesis steps, select a sample space that represents the overall population, and measure the hypothesis statistically. Then numbers could be shown at the .05 level indicating a confidence interval of 95% that the hypothesis is true. I haven't seen such a study yet, but one could exist.

Here's what Chockfull doesn't tell you (and why I reject this approach as a waste of time, since he asked me for a refutation): First off, there's no such thing as a sample space. There's such a thing as a sample SIZE, and let's assume that's what he meant. He wants a representative sample that could measure the hypothesis statistically to ascertain the veracity of the null hypothesis to a measurable confidence interval. What he doesn't tell you is that no such sample size exists. ANY attempt to put such a sample together will be successfully challenged. And Chockfull doesn't even have to be the one to do it. I would challenge anything that claims to be a "representative sample" of modern tongues speakers for the purpose Chockfull describes.

The error here is attempting to subject this discussion to the terms of the null hypothesis when, in truth, the null hypothesis is not the one in question.

In fact, I would venture to say that we HAVE the information Chockfull requests. He simply rejects it. Of all the claims of SIT that have been recorded AND examined by linguists, NOT ONE has been positively identified as a human language. Not one. So Chockfull speculates, without basis, that the linguists simply failed to recognize the languages that slipped by them. All the linguist all failed to identify all the languages. But Chockfull correctly points out that WE do not have the raw data (ID's of the speakers, backgrounds, recordings and/or accurate transcriptions, etc) to retrace the steps of those who did the testing. However, he incorrectly presumes that this information was not taken by those doing the studying.

There's a problem with that presumption. Samarin's works, Goodman's, etc. were all published in peer-reviewed publications. It is a requirement of such studies that such information is taken and kept. So it is safer to assume that such information WAS gathered and can be obtained within the volumes of studies and other information to which WE have not yet had access (and there's already been a concession that our access is limited compared to the body of work out there) than it is to presume that it doesn't exist.

Interestingly, SHERRILL's work (which, as summarized, comes closest among those we've seen to proving SIT's validity), is NOT published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is far more reasonable to presume that he did NOT keep or publish the background material we would like and expect to see in the other studies. However, it is entirely possible and would be a tremendous credit to his integrity if he did so. Until someone gets his book, we won't know that.

Meanwhile, all Chockfull has to do is produce and identify the language HE produces in SIT, and we're done here.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

you guys should stop trying to read minds

you suck at it

haha

I'd settle for reading reports.

[OldSkool]

I had enough information to know this was going to go nowhere as a discussion....

I had my hunches around 30 pages ago.

[Raf]

I did a major edit of my last post (1385) instead of putting up a new one. Enjoy.

In case anyone was in the midst of quoting from that last post while it was being edited, I take responsibility for any inconsistencies between what's posted now and what's quoted. You know, just in case.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By the way, just because a fallacy is improperly invoked, that doesn't mean it can't bring you to a correct result. Sometimes the nature of a claim is such that the only way to determine its validity is to try and fail to refute it. That is what a null hypothesis is (as distinct from my "hypothesis," which is, in reality, a challenge to another hypothesis).

I'll give you an example most of us are familiar with: The written works of VPW are God-breathed.

This SOUNDS like a big, fat affirmative claim, but in order to investigate it on rational terms it needs to be treated as a null hypothesis. Because the written works of VPW define "God-breathed" and spell out the characteristics of God-breathed work, the only sensible way to approach the hypothesis would not be to PROVE it, but to DISPROVE it. A failure to disprove it would leave one with some degree of confidence that the hypothesis is true.

Yes, it shifts the burden of proof to the person arguing against the big fat claim, but it does so in the only conceivable way to objectively get to the truth. An honest challenge, in such a case, would have to accept the burden of proof, even though doing so in other cases would represent a fallacious approach. In effect, we changed the terms of the debate to make the denial an affirmative claim: the works of PFAL have errors and contradictions.

For those who don't know, we accepted the challenge and uncovered some 30 errors and contradictions in the written works of VPW that disqualify it, on its own terms, of being God-breathed. The identified errors were real, not just differences of opinion on what the Bible teaches.

In THIS conversation, even if one were to presume that I am the one making the big fat claim, it is acknowledged by both sides that my claim cannot be proved, but it can be disproved. The only rational way to approach the question is to cast it in provable terms. I can't prove my case. You CAN prove yours. Snap to it.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

Look, for a while I was investigating doctrinal implications here. I never got an answer. My question was "since you claim modern SIT is not Biblical SIT, what changed?" I was looking for some scripture, historical event, etc. that would indicate at this time now you can't SIT any more like they did in Acts.

I zero response on that from the people claiming that it's not the same. Oh, one person referred me to look up a commentary on a guy who explained it through dispensationalism or something.

So it is completely logical to question that if somehow God can "turn off" the power to SIT all of a sudden, without warning, scripture, natural event, then who's to say that random occurance wouldn't also happen with miracles and other power from God?

I told you that I don't know why it would have changed, but I certainly know the reasons people propose as possibilities. I just don't think they would satisfy you. I casually mentioned that tongues in Acts were used as a sign to usher new groups into the church and signs did follow those that believe as Jesus predicted. You told me Jesus is still alive as if that explained the idea and purpose for SIT in Acts and Jesus' meaning when He predicted signs would follow. There is more detail to consider. I didn't even mention what had been added to Mark because Raf has already brought it to attention. However, there are reasons people put forth as to what might have changed, but they deal with concepts from scripture, context, and a less literal approach to some verses. If you are interested in this topic, some of the articles linked to in the reading room may address these questions or at least get you started. You and I both have a distinct manner and approach to exegesis and it is not a good idea for us to discuss scripture in too much detail.

The reasons people put forth for why the practice may have changed are not definitive, they are just possibilities and involve contextual concepts . Context is always an issue when reading scripture as there are not too many stand alone verses. When speaking of context, you told me outright it didn't matter because Corinthians is the only place where Paul speaks of tongues and if we rely on the context it might change the meaning of the verse in question from a command to something else. I can't ignore context or take one verse as standing alone. If I did that I might be tempted to pluck out my eye or advocate the chopping off of hands. What I am trying to say is that it is difficult for me to have a conversation about scripture with you. Not only does it gets personal too quickly, but we can't even agree on basic bible exegesis. I am sure you have similar problems with my approach and where I do rely on context both in the immediate area, the book itself, and the canonical meaning. Where we agree is that it is best to read scripture as literal where we can.....we just don't agree where that may be.

The practice of SIT appears to have disappeared from the church almost completely if the writing of the Church Fathers are any indication. They should be, and we are not speaking of a period of time very far removed from the Apostles. Chrysostom, when getting ready to talk about the gifts in 1 Corinthians basically said they had ceased. We have indications they had stopped altogether in the church at Corinth not too long after the Apostles were gone. I have linked to a paper in the SIT Reading Room thread if you are interested. We do have some history. Make what you will of it, but tongues did all but vanish from the church. There was a smattering here or there over time. It was not until the last few centuries it reemerged as a practice. The advent of modern tongues is directly related to one particular event and woman if you are interested in checking that out. This has really had an impact on modern Pentecostalism IMO. It is at least worth understanding how we were influenced concerning TWI. Looking at the bigger picture of church history may help guide us in our seeking answers....although, like scripture, history can be twisted to suit a particular belief. VP was a master at this.

I believe the bible is God's Holy word and any conversation about it should not continually be contentious or lead to ad hominem attacks. When I find myself in the midst of that....it is time to back away. I am ashamed I got caught up in it with you to begin with. The scriptures are not a weapon or means to insult another. God have mercy if I ever return to treating them as such. I mentioned this before, and I think it is important to remember....the one unforgivable sin mentioned in scripture does not revolve around the Father, or the Son, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That should speak to us of the sanctity and sacred nature of the Holy Spirit and how we should tread lightly and cautiously concerning or discussing Him.

Edited October 30, 2012 by geisha779

[socks]

You identify one of the fundamental elements of life geisha -

For instance I canI see that God can heal the sick - but from the human side not everyone is healed when they're sick and not in ways that appear consistent, the same way every time. One perspective would ask the question: why some but not all, why now and not always, why here but not somewhere else?

Adding the human effort and trying to make in consistent and reliable won't work as well as I once thought, for the most obvious of reasons - human effort at it's best isn't 100 per cent consistent in quality or quantity, certainly not in the same way that "God" is. So if believing action is the key I'm going to be out of luck because at best I won't keep that key turned on all the time.

Grace factors in a host of things that I can't accomplish by human effort and can't manage and sustain consistently. Grace could be more than getting what I haven't earned, by "grace" I'm saved, etc.....grace really allows for a whole range of activity that I have no control over, when I think about it....

Speaking in tongues may be less a function of the "new life" and more an expression of the "saved life", the life in transition in this life. They will "cease", have an end to their use and presumably the need.

Use in public expression or worship, I have seen their affect when the true "language of men" has occurred - it feels like, sounds like more of a miraculous event, "signs miracles and wonders" - where a Chinese couple hear their native language spoken by a person who clearly doesn't know it - it definitely knocks people back and gathers attention.

Why then? There? why those people and not others?

I've said it before and it's my best answer - I don't know. My sense is - of a larger construct being revealed, but - that's another topic really. :)

[Raf]

Wait, it was a Chinese couple now? I don't recall it being a couple before. More input!

[Raf]

Yes, last time it was A Group of Asians (Chinese was implied by the rest of the account).

Were there other Asians there? Were they Chinese? Did they understand too? Or was it just the couple? Why single out the couple if all the Asians understood? Why mention the other Asians if only the couple understood?

And last time, we were a little vague on the native language issue. It was: "The native language of the group. It wasn't a completely modern dialect of Chinese, but it was the dialect spoken by these people's family elders, older generation. I guess they said there were a few words that were slightly different that identified it that way to them.”

So wait, was it their language that they recognized and could confirm the translation? Or did it sound like the language used by their parents and grandparents that they knew if they heard it, but could not translate?

And do we still not know who any of these people are?

Input! Input!

Edited October 30, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Sorry to be a pain in the neck, but I'm catching hell for failing to fall prostrate before this story, so it's in my best interest to at least try to nail down exactly what the story is. You know, to the best of your recollection.

And we KNOW the tongues speaker didn't speak Chinese, right? Because he... said so? No, that's gullible. You have to know the guy. I mean, at the time. You knew his educational background, knew he never studied in college or anywhere else...

Wait, how'd these folks end up in the same fellowship meeting, anyway? Just curious.

If these questions seem unfair, please understand, they are more fair than the expectation that I believe this story without asking them.

Socks hasn't asked me to believe this story. I'd LOVE answers, but he is under no obligation to provide them. But without the answers, I am under no obligation to believe the story. Agreed?

[chockfull]

I mostly agree with Word Wolf, especially in light of the post he's quoting, but one thing needs clarification: There is no such thing as a burden of proof fallacy, but there IS such a thing as a "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy. Chockfull has both misdefined it and misapplied it to this conversation. He sincerely believes that I have the burden of proof because I started the thread and was "loudest" about it (that second quality has nothing to do with jacks hit).

You are both so full of it. What I stated was that the argument started long ago, so establishing which side has the burden of proof based upon rules is a moot point.

[Raf]

It is not a moot point. It's being treated as one because you don't know how to apply it in this case.

[chockfull]

The practice of SIT appears to have disappeared from the church almost completely if the writing of the Church Fathers are any indication. They should be, and we are not speaking of a period of time very far removed from the Apostles. Chrysostom, when getting ready to talk about the gifts in 1 Corinthians basically said they had ceased. We have indications they had stopped altogether in the church at Corinth not too long after the Apostles were gone. I have linked to a paper in the SIT Reading Room thread if you are interested. We do have some history. Make what you will of it, but tongues did all but vanish from the church. There was a smattering here or there over time. It was not until the last few centuries it reemerged as a practice. The advent of modern tongues is directly related to one particular event and woman if you are interested in checking that out. This has really had an impact on modern Pentecostalism IMO. It is at least worth understanding how we were influenced concerning TWI. Looking at the bigger picture of church history may help guide us in our seeking answers....although, like scripture, history can be twisted to suit a particular belief. VP was a master at this.

And without twisting history we can note that basically Paul said "all in Asia be turned away from me". Paul was martyred in somewhere around the 64AD - 70AD timeframes. There were a lot of things that disappeared from the church shortly after the detail of the first generation. That in and of itself should not be taken to be proof of any gifts subsiding, as it's fairly evident that by the 3rd century Christianity was politically influenced and the Pope had established power.

I believe the bible is God's Holy word and any conversation about it should not continually be contentious or lead to ad hominem attacks. When I find myself in the midst of that....it is time to back away. I am ashamed I got caught up in it with you to begin with. The scriptures are not a weapon or means to insult another. God have mercy if I ever return to treating them as such. I mentioned this before, and I think it is important to remember....the one unforgivable sin mentioned in scripture does not revolve around the Father, or the Son, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That should speak to us of the sanctity and sacred nature of the Holy Spirit and how we should tread lightly and cautiously concerning or discussing Him.

There are a lot of ad hominem attacks on this thread. Mostly in an attempt to discredit research writings (someone was called a college student with a paper assignment I recall), and mostly to discredit. Raf subjects me to ad hominem attacks about every 3 posts, telling everyone how I'm dishonest, not interested in true research, etc.

Usually the extent of the ad hominem attacks show me that I've presented Raf with something that he doesn't want to face, such as lack of systematic research, calling opinion as fact, etc.

[Raf]

Excuse me, but that "researcher" WAS a college student writing for class. He posted his resume. At the time that paper was written, he was an undergrad with a minor in religious philosophy. I wasn't namecalling or pulling an accusation out of a hat. I documented my claim. He also pulled his paper off the web. It wasn't research published in a peer reviewed journal or even in a respected theological publication. If any paper we've reviewed can be labeled "shoddy," that was it. So please stop acting like this was some unwarranted attack on his character to call him a college student when it was a statement of verified fact.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I do believe your attacks on the research are without merit, and I've documented why and how. I do believe your proposed alternative is disingenuous and designed to fail, and I've outlined how and why. You ARE being dishonest in your rejection of free vocalization as an innate human ability, and I've documented how and why. So please, spare me the pity party of how my calling you out as a patently dishonest debater somehow amounts to an ad hominem attack. It is not. It is a fair reflection of how you've conducted yourself on this thread, and you're the only one who appears unable to see it.

[chockfull]

Simply put, in any debate involving an affirmative claim, the burden of proving that claim falls on the person making it. Chockfull and I honestly disagree on who's making the affirmative claim. I concede that i started the thread, but it takes a special brand of ignorance and denial to assert that i am the one making the affirmative claim here. I am gratified that people looking at this conversation with an identifiable bias against me, that is, people who WANT me to be wrong, recognize that i am not the one making the affirmative claim here. Tongues speakers are. And the burden is on you to prove your claim.

You started the thread, you made the accusations that everyone SIT in modern day is faking it. That is the claim. Therefore by your logic it is your burden of proof to prove. Your tactics are to state as fact opinion, and lie about it to the point where you think people won't see through it. You are doing so here again. Where are SIT speakers making a claim here on this thread? Please point it out to all of the readers, including making the FIRST claim.

I let you off the hook on that, saying that since the argument started long before this thread, it was unclear on who had the burden of proof - those stating that SIT is fake and false, or those saying it was genuine.

Now you dishonestly are trying to frame the conversation so that you don't have a burden of proof which very clearly you are unable to meet. I see why you are doing it. Fear, knowledge that you can't prove it, not wanting to look bad. But it's still a dishonest approach.

But SHIFTING the burden of proof IS a fallacy. This happens when the side making the affirmative claim insists on the claim's veracity, despite it being UNproven, until the OTHER side disproves it.

You mean how YOU shifted the burden of proof? Your affirmative claim "modern SIT doesn't produce a language". Your further affirmative claim "all those saying they are SIT in modern times are liars and are faking it.

Look, not only does this place the burden of proof squarely on YOUR shoulders, but you are also being obnoxious. I didn't start out calling you a liar and a faker, it took about 60 pages of seeing you dishonestly state opinion as fact, to fill the thread with rhetoric, and summarily dismiss any of the opposite positions first-hand anecdotes, all which accepting without question those on your side.

You are dishonest. You are lying. You have called people names since the beginning of the thread. I say your testimony of yourself tells the whole story. You lied about SIT while in TWI. And you are lying now about research.

To the untrained eye (ie, Chockfull's) this appears to be what I am doing. I am making a "big fat claim" that modern SIT is not Biblical SIT. Chockfull is asking me to prove it, and my response is that the only way to get to the truth is to disprove my big fat claim. But that interpretation assumes that the claim I am making is an affirmative one. It is not. The claim I am making is a response to a claim made more than a century before this thread even started. It is the original BIG FAT claim, that modern SIT IS Biblical SIT, that is the affirmative claim that has not been proved.

Nobody really made that big fat claim. For instance myself. I didn't come here, and start a thread how modern SIT is Biblical SIT. Pretty much to the charismatic Christians in the world, it's not something they NEED to make a claim about. They practice their faith in peace and quiet. For me, I got pulled into an argument by someone acting like a douche@g calling charismatic Christians names like liars and fakers. I got sick of it, so I decided to humor the conversation to see how full of it they were. I see they are plenty full of it, and won't listen to reason.

In short, I am NOT asking you to disprove MY claim. I am asking you to PROVE yours. There is a world of difference. People who entered this dialogue wanting me to be wrong have conceded that I am correct in my analysis of the burden of proof issue.

What exactly is it about your behavior on this thread that makes you think you deserve ANYTHING from me? Name-calling and lies don't earn you anything.

Lately, Chockfull's gotten clever about shifting the burden of proof, throwing around words like "null hypothesis," "statistics" and "confidence intervals," as if he's got the slightest idea what he's talking about or the slightest intention of honoring a scientific investigation if one is either produced or undertaken. The entire venture he proposes is a shifting of the burden of proof.

Yes, it's really clever to look at Wikipedia's definition of "the scientific method", whereby all peer reviewed scientific research papers are all evaluated against, and highlight some of the terms there involved with "proof". The reason I had to be so "clever" was Raf abusing the word "proof" all throughout the thread. Finally, I decided to call him on it.

Apparently, since he is unable to show any measure of fact or use of the scientific method that is anywhere near what is used in sociological studies, psychological studies, and virtually all modern research, then he falls back on his next line of defense. Name-calling, and lies.

"Cleverness". Wow. That's a new one. I never knew looking up a main term on Wikipedia was so "clever".

Here's what Chockfull doesn't tell you (and why I reject this approach as a waste of time, since he asked me for a refutation): First off, there's no such thing as a sample space. There's such a thing as a sample SIZE, and let's assume that's what he meant. He wants a representative sample that could measure the hypothesis statistically to ascertain the veracity of the null hypothesis to a measurable confidence interval. What he doesn't tell you is that no such sample size exists. ANY attempt to put such a sample together will be successfully challenged. And Chockfull doesn't even have to be the one to do it. I would challenge anything that claims to be a "representative sample" of modern tongues speakers for the purpose Chockfull describes.

Hahahaha. There is NO SUCH THING as a sample space. Do you think such a transparent lie is going to stand? A "sample space" is the entire population that you are trying to study. It differs from general population in that it is the entire population that you want to apply the hypothesis test to. The sample space is the pool from which you select your sample. Sample size is the number of samples you use in your study.

The error here is attempting to subject this discussion to the terms of the null hypothesis when, in truth, the null hypothesis is not the one in question.

And again, ignorance should not be mixed with stating opinion as fact. In hypothesis testing, YOU SELECT what the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are. And they equally could be selected to try and prove either side of the argument here.

In fact, I would venture to say that we HAVE the information Chockfull requests. He simply rejects it. Of all the claims of SIT that have been recorded AND examined by linguists, NOT ONE has been positively identified as a human language. Not one. So Chockfull speculates, without basis, that the linguists simply failed to recognize the languages that slipped by them. All the linguist all failed to identify all the languages. But Chockfull correctly points out that WE do not have the raw data (ID's of the speakers, backgrounds, recordings and/or accurate transcriptions, etc) to retrace the steps of those who did the testing. However, he incorrectly presumes that this information was not taken by those doing the studying.

And ONE MORE TIME, where are the samples? Where is the writeup on them? Where is the statement of the hypothesis? Where are the numbers measured? Where is the mean, the standard deviation? Where is the confidence interval?

But I'm OVERJOYED to see that we HAVE this information. I'm expecting to see you post up links to it within your next couple of posts.

There's a problem with that presumption. Samarin's works, Goodman's, etc. were all published in peer-reviewed publications. It is a requirement of such studies that such information is taken and kept. So it is safer to assume that such information WAS gathered and can be obtained within the volumes of studies and other information to which WE have not yet had access (and there's already been a concession that our access is limited compared to the body of work out there) than it is to presume that it doesn't exist.

I just love it when we are now discussing PROOF in terms of "what is safer to assume". So you're admitting there is no proof here? And suggesting guidelines on what we should assume about it?

I do believe your attacks on the research are without merit, and I've documented why and how. I do believe your proposed alternative is disingenuous and designed to fail, and I've outlined how and why. You ARE being dishonest in your rejection of free vocalization as an innate human ability, and I've documented how and why. So please, spare me the pity party of how my calling you out as a patently dishonest debater somehow amounts to an ad hominem attack. It is not. It is a fair reflection of how you've conducted yourself on this thread, and you're the only one who appears unable to see it.

Your arguments are so full of logical fallacies you couldn't see the truth if it hit you in the rear.

Even your terminology is BS. I don't have "attacks" on research. I am simply asking to see evidence of PROOF that backs up their wild conclusions. I have yet to see any. All you have to do is provide the references to where we can all read it. I guess that's too hard, though. So instead you can just provide some ad hominem attacks on your opposition.

I don't have a pity party going on. You are attacking me ad hominem on almost every post now. That's very apparent. That's your problem, not mine.

Edited October 30, 2012 by chockfull