SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

You STILL don't understand burden of proof. You think you did me a favor? Nope. Sorry. Your post was refuted before it was even written. I stand by my claim: the burden to prove anything is yours.

You have waged a nonstop campaign of accusing me of using the word "proof" dishonestly. You have yet to show one instance of me doing so.

And I agree: I am fully confident we will find the documentation of who Samarin's subjects were. A leap of faith, sure. But not n unreasonable one. We shall see...

[chockfull]

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?

I seriously doubt you would have believed it even if you were there in the room.

[Raf]

I have to admit, you got me on Sample Space. It does exist. But, and this will SHOCK our readers, it's got nothing to do with what you describe. It's a term used in probability theory. You cannot "choose a sample space that is reflective of the overall population." It's got nothing to do with that. So again, you're throwing scientific terms around with no clue what they mean and how they apply to this discussion in a vain and transparent attempt to distract readers from the truth that the only way to end this discussion is to produce and identify the language, or find someone who can.

I seriously doubt you would have believed it even if you were there in the room.

FINALLY! Some skepticism from you! Would you believe me if I wrote it down in a book 40 years ago and decline to tell you who the participants were?

[chockfull]

You STILL don't understand burden of proof. You think you did me a favor? Nope. Sorry. Your post was refuted before it was even written. I stand by my claim: the burden to prove anything is yours.

You have waged a nonstop campaign of accusing me of using the word "proof" dishonestly. You have yet to show one instance of me doing so.

And I agree: I am fully confident we will find the documentation of who Samarin's subjects were. A leap of faith, sure. But not n unreasonable one. We shall see...

No, I understand burden of proof, I just disagree with you on what consists of "an affirmative claim". I started my discussion on this thread under the premise of disproving YOUR claim.

You are trying to maneuver me into a corner of the "appeal to ignorance" logical fallacy, where you say if someone can't disprove it, then it's true. I don't make that claim. I'm not saying that.

I have a nonstop campaign of presenting honesty related to this topic, and using accurate terms. Like not saying "proven" unless it is. Like pointing out issues with research. If you are not acting honestly in your use of the word "proven" then you ARE the target of this. That's your problem.

[waysider]

I wouldn't even need for anyone to identify the language. I would be satisfied if someone could simply verify that it IS a language...any language. (Along with the usual qualifiers, such as no previous exposure to the language, etc.)

[Raf]

No, I understand burden of proof, I just disagree with you on what consists of "an affirmative claim". I started my discussion on this thread under the premise of disproving YOUR claim.

With every post on this subject you are further broadcasting your ignorance of burden of proof.

You are trying to maneuver me into a corner of the "appeal to ignorance" logical fallacy, where you say if someone can't disprove it, then it's true. I don't make that claim. I'm not saying that.

By suggesting that you have somehow done me a favor by absolving me of the burden of proof, you are saying exactly that. Nonetheless, I do recognize that there is more info to be gathered to answer some outstanding questions. I am not trying to back you into fallacies. I am attempting to draw you out of them.

I have a nonstop campaign of presenting honesty related to this topic, and using accurate terms. Like not saying "proven" unless it is. Like pointing out issues with research. If you are not acting honestly in your use of the word "proven" then you ARE the target of this. That's your problem.

That is laughable. Show me ONE place where I've used the word "proven" or "proof" about something that wasn't proven or proved. One. Show me ONE.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

Just to be clear.....when I mentioned ad hominem attacks it was in reference to my specific exchanges with Chockfull and I think we are both guilty of it. . . . I am not passing judgement on other exchanges here. I have my thoughts, but how helpful will more opinions really be? I will say, I have been baffled by some of the reasoning on this thread, but I think this has turned out to be a more personal and difficult topic than I ever anticipated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edited October 31, 2012 by geisha779

[chockfull]

With every post on this subject you are further broadcasting your ignorance of burden of proof.

You know, you would be less of a tool if you weren't trying to act all high and mighty surrounding something that has simple definitions on the internet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

There are 3 definitions below this, and one points to the same Wikipedia reference to "Scientific Method" that I posted previously.

You know, the article that contains definitions of hypothesis test, null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, and confidence intervals? Those terms which you don't have a clue about, to the extent you are saying "there is no such thing as sample space"????

That is laughable. Show me ONE place where I've used the word "proven" or "proof" about something that wasn't proven or proved. One. Show me ONE.

We went through this exercise a couple pages ago, where I went back 4 pages out of 60 and provided AMPLE examples of you misusing "proof". I think during that exchange I challenged you to show ONE thing that WAS proven. You never have.

[Raf]

Not a single example you cited, not one, showed an improper use of the word proof. You lie.

[chockfull]

I have to admit, you got me on Sample Space. It does exist. But, and this will SHOCK our readers, it's got nothing to do with what you describe. It's a term used in probability theory. You cannot "choose a sample space that is reflective of the overall population." It's got nothing to do with that. So again, you're throwing scientific terms around with no clue what they mean and how they apply to this discussion in a vain and transparent attempt to distract readers from the truth that the only way to end this discussion is to produce and identify the language, or find someone who can.

And probability theory / statistics theory is EXACTLY what is used in hypothesis testing. And sample space IS the complete population that you are modeling.

But please, enlighten all the readers here about your erudite understanding of this field and the terms in it SEEING AS YOU JUST FOUND OUT THAT TERM EXISTED in the last page. Instant expertise, I call it. Or, more accurately, you DON'T UNDERSTAND the terms, are struggling to come up to speed with what is necessary to actually do scientific method testing, and are trying to save face in the process.

Not a single example you cited, not one, showed an improper use of the word proof. You lie.

And all you have to do to prove I'm lying is SHOW EVIDENCE that ONE THING you are claiming as PROVEN ACTUALLY IS. Show the evidence, research, statistics.

But you can't.

So the evidence points to YOU being the one lying.

Just to be clear.....when I mentioned ad hominem attacks it was in reference to my specific exchanges with Chockfull and I think we are both guilty of it. . . . I am not passing judgement on other exchanges here. I have my thoughts, but how helpful will more opinions really be? I will say, I have been baffled by some of the reasoning on this thread, but I think this has turned out to be a more personal and difficult topic than I ever anticipated.

There are a lot of names and accusations flying around the thread. "Ad hominem" specifically refers to the logical fallacy of discrediting research by attacking the researcher.

You and I aren't really presenting research on this thread, so "ad hominem" really wouldn't apply to our discussion, regardless of the civility, name-calling, etc. present or not.

And yes, it's a difficult topic.

[Raf]

Actually, this is REALLY easy.

The critical region CR, or rejection region RR, is a set of values of the test statistic for which the null hypothesis is rejected in a hypothesis test. That is, the sample space for the test statistic is partitioned into two regions; one region (the critical region) will lead us to reject the null hypothesis H0, the other will not. So, if the observed value of the test statistic is a member of the critical region, we conclude "Reject H0"; if it is not a member of the critical region then we conclude "Do not reject H0".

So, in order to reject the null hypothesis, I need to partition the potential outcomes according to its probabilities.

Probability one: Glossolalia produces a human language, distinguishing it from free vocalization.

Probability two: Glossolalia does NOT produce a human language, failing to distinguish it from free vocalization.

Plenty of examples have already been tested. Glossolalia has failed to be distinguished from free vocalization.

Your move.

Oh, that's right, free vocalization doesn't exist. Because you said so.

Really.

There are no "Reject H0" samples in any of the studies we've observed.

You're welcome.

You HAVE shown multiple examples of me stating my opinion as fact (an allegation I never denied, by the way). You have NEVER shown an instance of me using "proved, proof" or any other variation of that word improperly. About that, you have lied and are continuing to lie.

The only caveat: we disagree on whether free vocalization is proved. It is. You deny that. Your denial is without merit.

But that's as close as you're going to get.

In fact, from the beginning of this conversation, I have always conceded that my case can't be proved, so it would be quite silly for me to declare that it has been. It has not, nor can it be.

It CAN be disproved... if you prove your big fat claim.

[chockfull]

So, in order to reject the null hypothesis, I need to partition the potential outcomes according to its probabilities.

Probability one: Glossolalia produces a human language, distinguishing it from free vocalization.

Probability two: Glossolalia does NOT produce a human language, failing to distinguish it from free vocalization.

Not so easy. How do you propose statistics to prove whether or not it's a human language? The fact that the linguist and people in the studies don't understand it doesn't prove that. You COULD make attempts towards that by posting up samples up on a website and offering a reward for anyone recognizing the language. That still wouldn't prove it conclusively but would strengthen the case.

But nobody has done that.

Plenty of examples have already been tested. Glossolalia has failed to be distinguished from free vocalization.

Free vocalization is DEFINED to include human made-up gibberish languages, people talking to spirit guides, and MAYBE a genuine sample of SIT.

(I can't tell that for sure because I haven't seen ANYONE in these studies write up their samples yet.)

You can't prove something where you define the term to mean what you are trying to prove. That is a circular logic fallacy.

The only caveat: we disagree on whether free vocalization is proved. It is. You deny that. Your denial is without merit.

You are not understanding the very clear point that you can't prove something that by nature you are defining to be something. So NO, that is not proven. Using a circular logic fallacy is NOT proof.

And you not understanding it is you being dishonest about it. YOU are lying saying it is proven.

Edited October 30, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

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.

The reason I misstepped on sample space, and I did, is that you misused it. There is no way to conduct the study you propose, because the question we are looking at does not lend itself to this approach. You admit as much in your next line.

While that would not prove your point conclusively (according to your accurate caveats above), it WOULD prove a confidence interval that would support a lot more conclusions.

The first half of your sentence invalidates the second. It would not prove my point, and there is no confidence interval that would be mutually acceptable.

The truth is that samples of SIT have been reviewed critically and have never been demonstrated to produce an actual language. The sample space is "rejects the contention that SIT IS free vocalization" or "fails to reject the contention that SIT IS free vocalization." Thus far, ALL STUDIED SAMPLES fit the latter category. None fit the former. Now, you dispute HOW and WHY there are no samples that reject the contention that SIT IS free vocalization. But you do so through utter speculation and a genuine appeal to ignorance: you believe the linguists who've studied this phenomenon are incompetent to identify languages. There's no evidence for it, but until it's disproved, you hold it as a truth until proven otherwise.

You are free to do so, but that is a genn-you-whine fallacy at work, for all to see.

So HAVE AT IT.

I've already discredited your silly "free mouthvoiceization" red herring, but I'll gladly do it again.

The difference between free vocalization and free mouthvoiceisation is that free vocalization actually describes an observed phenomenon that exists, can be produced at will, can be reproduced among those who are unfamiliar with it, and has been repeatedly demonstrated by children, actors, admitted fakers and self-deluded but well-meaning Christians who think they're producing Biblical SIT.

Free mouthvoiceization is not only an invented term, but it describes an invented concept that does not exist, can't be reproduced, can't be taught, etc. Now, if you told me that free mouthvoiceization is the label you invented to describe the act of talking in your sleep (which really exists), I would be forced to conclude that free mouthvoiceization exists, but only as defined.

Can anyone spot the logical fallacy chockfull employed here? It's called false equivalence: when a shared trait (in this case, the slapping of a label on something) is used to is used to equate those two things. But there are too many differences between free vocalization (established, real, PROVED) and free mouthvoiceization (unestablished, fictional by definition, unproved).

So please, stop using a discredited example to prove there's no such thing as free vocalization. There is. You cannot escape it, and as long as you hold to this absurd notion, I will continue to address you as the dishonest debater you are continually showing yourself to be.

You know, for someone who supposedly understands what sample space is, your misuse of it is kind of funny:

See how much of a researcher I am? See how my hypothesis is clear? See how my sample space is really a defined group of people all with the same characteristics?

Um, a sample space is not a defined group of people. It's a defined set of potential outcomes. BECAUSE I thought you were talking about groups of people, I assumed you were talking about sample size and not sample space. Had I realized you were talking about a potential set of outcomes (and you show no evidence of understanding that this is the meaning of the term), I would have recognized that you were using a term that had slipped from my memory.

Once again, you have taken terms, misdefined them, and misapplied them to this conversation.

THAT's why I keep threatening to "take my ball and go home." It's not because ALL the points you're making are bad. It's because when you DO have a good point, I have to sift through too much crap to get to it.

I have no obligation to sift through your crap. You have lied about and misrepresented my posts, you have lied about and misrepresented the research we have been reviewing. You exalt a college paper uncritically and dismiss peer-reviewed research as shoddy. You demand background details of people who participated in legitimate research but accept, without criticism, published anecdotes of Catholics and Persians without a shred of evidence that the people described even exist, much less that they experienced what is claimed.

I should say that I have every reason to believe that the information on the samples used in Samarin and Goodman and the others is actually documented. I hesitate to share it at this point for fear of what will happen when you get your dishonest and disingenuous hands on them.

But hey, you already won this debate, so why are we even having this conversation?

Anyone who doesn't believe free vocalization is an innate human ability is not being honest in this discussion. Period. I would just as soon argue over the existence of the moon. The innate, human ability to free vocalize is proved every time someone does it. And people do it all the time.

Let me ask you a question: before gravity was labeled, did it exist?

Edited October 30, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

All right - from my perspective I've gone back to p. 57 of this discussion, and already found numerous examples of where Raf is stating "modern SIT does not produce languages" as fact and not an opinion. That's in the last 4 pages. So until someone points out to me the difference in the alternate universe where I'm obtaining these quotes from a real universe, I'm going to go with

Raf is stating opinion as fact when he says "modern SIT does not produce languages", and that this hasn't been proven.

But not one of those instances shows me misusing the term "proved" or "proven" and applying it to my opinion, which I DID state as fact, just as you have done with your opinions.

So this is an example of us asking you for proof of claim A and unearthing proof of something other than claim A.

You lie.

How many more would you like me to document?

Every time you accuse me of referring to my opinion as "proved," you lie. I have done no such thing. You have been on me for page after page after page, whining about my misuse of the word "proved," and you have not shown a SINGLE EXAMPLE of my misuse of that word or its application to my opinion. STOP LYING ABOUT ME!

Edited October 30, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

The truth is that samples of SIT have been reviewed critically and have never been demonstrated to produce an actual language. The sample space is "rejects the contention that SIT IS free vocalization" or "fails to reject the contention that SIT IS free vocalization." Thus far, ALL STUDIED SAMPLES fit the latter category. None fit the former. Now, you dispute HOW and WHY there are no samples that reject the contention that SIT IS free vocalization. But you do so through utter speculation and a genuine appeal to ignorance: you believe the linguists who've studied this phenomenon are incompetent to identify languages. There's no evidence for it, but until it's disproved, you hold it as a truth until proven otherwise.

You sound pretty lost here again. "Free vocalization" one more time is a made-up term by linguists lumping together occurrences of languages they didn't understand themselves and the speakers stated they didn't know. The fact they made this term up to be a "kitchen sink" type of a catch-all description, and thus it is not narrow enough to use in a hypothesis test, just goes to illustrate that THEY ARE NOT PROVING ANYTHING.

All studied samples fit my "free mouthnoiseization" definition too. What does this prove? You got it. NOTHING. I made up the word to include the samples.

I've already discredited your silly "free mouthvoiceization" red herring, but I'll gladly do it again.

The difference between free vocalization and free mouthvoiceisation is that free vocalization actually describes an observed phenomenon that exists, can be produced at will, can be reproduced among those who are unfamiliar with it, and has been repeatedly demonstrated by children, actors, admitted fakers and self-deluded but well-meaning Christians who think they're producing Biblical SIT.

Free mouthvoiceization is not only an invented term, but it describes an invented concept that does not exist, can't be reproduced, can't be taught, etc. Now, if you told me that free mouthvoiceization is the label you invented to describe the act of talking in your sleep (which really exists), I would be forced to conclude that free mouthvoiceization exists.

Completely wrong. "Free mouthnoiseization" is a term that describes SIT, arguments with relatives, made up child-like languages, and blowing bubbles with vocal action. The concept DOES exist - I just introduced it. Just like "free vocalization". You can observe the phenomenon ANY TIME YOU LIKE, by listening to relatives argue, someone blow bubbles, make up languages, or SIT. It can be reproduced at will easily among those unfamiliar with it. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by the same group of people. They may not understand the term, just like they may not understand the term "free vocalization".

It is an invented term. The concept DOES EXIST - I have the concept, I described it and communicated it. It can be reproduced. It can be easily taught. Here, I'll teach it in one easy sentence. "Stick your head under water, blow bubbles, and make a MMMMM sound". See? Now you are "free mouthnoising" it.

It PROVES NOTHING MORE to use that term than it is to use the "free vocalization". In fact, those two terms are remarkably similar, even though I just made it up.

Can anyone spot the logical fallacy chockfull employed here? It's called false equivalence: when a shared trait (in this case, the slapping of a label on something) is used to is used to equate those two things. But there are too many differences between free vocalization (established, real, PROVED) and free mouthvoiceization (unestablished, fictional by definition, unproved).

And the irony of this paragraph is that Raf is describing EXACTLY THE ISSUE WITH THE TERM "free vocalization" here. False equivalence (SIT, medium conversation), a shared trait (a language others in the room don't understand). But, like "free mouthnoiseization", there are too many differences between a medium conversation, someone SIT, and someone making up a gibberish language for them to be REALISTICALLY CONSIDERED the same by anyone with half a brain.

So please, stop using a discredited example to prove there's no such thing as free vocalization. There is. You cannot escape it, and as long as you hold to this absurd notion, I will continue to address you as the dishonest debater you are continually showing yourself to be.

Please, by all means, keep using that made up term. It means exactly NOTHING with respect to proof, just like it always has. But hey, you have to have SOMETHING to cling to when logic fails.

Um, a sample space is not a defined group of people. It's a defined set of potential outcomes. BECAUSE I thought you were talking about groups of people, I assumed you were talking about sample size and not sample space.

Once again, you have taken terms, misdefined them, and misapplied them to this conversation.

Raf, I really don't want to let facts get in the way of your ignorant rant here, but you really ought to read a little more on the subject. Here's one example. It's a college paper. Now I know how you are regarding ad hominem attacks on college students, but I really think you ought to read this guy's paper, as the terms he uses and defines are common ones in the field, they are clearly written and easy to understand, and it WOULD make you look a little less stupid to understand the same terms that anyone with a background in the scientific method knows:

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Hypothesis-Testing-381176.html

THAT's why I keep threatening to "take my ball and go home." It's not because ALL the points you're making are bad. It's because when you DO have a good point, I have to sift through too much crap to get to it.

Yeah, it's tedious to keep calling you on stating opinion as fact. And the namecalling is obnoxious.

I should say that I have every reason to believe that the information on the samples used in Samarin and Goodman and the others is actually documented. I hesitate to share it at this point for fear of what will happen when you get your dishonest and disingenuous hands on them.

Or you hesitate to share it BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE IT. I'm sure I will subject their samples to no less a level of rigorous questioning that say, you have to socks here last page on his account. To do less wouldn't be fair.

Anyone who doesn't believe free vocalization is an innate human ability is not being honest in this discussion. Period. I would just as soon argue over the existence of the moon.

And the definitions you accept without scrutiny ABSOLUTELY lead you to ONE WAY of looking at this. You will never get past this until you can get honest about the terms you are using.

[Raf]

In a misguided attempt to cool things down, I used mod capabilities to temporarily lock the thread. I chastised no one, reminded everyone of the rules, and waited for things to cool down. I forgot that I had already revealed that mod identity and, no way around it, got busted.

This was no effort to silence dissent. It was intended to cool tempers, starting with my own.

I know the rules. I will abide by them. I expect others to do the same and for other mods to police things as the need arises.

I will accept any mod reprimand handed down by the powers that be.

While I informed the other mods of what I was doing, I did not wait for permission to act. I have reported my behavior and am awaiting disciplinary action.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Now that the other thread is locked, this should be a short one.

Raf - you chose to ask several questions about the incident I wrote about.

I'm not going to answer them. It's not out of anger - well, I did have another really ROCKING post that is now locked but at least it can be read, so all's not lost.

But no anger here. My story's not going to get picked full of holes by questions about facts that are -

Over 40 years old.

If one thing happened once 40 years ago that I remember and post here, it's only because that one event was one of the more astounding events of it's kind - for me.

I didn't share it to satisfy anyone's need for factual support of evidence.

It's not a usable fact in any sense of the words - it's meaninful to me today and I'm sure that it was meaningful for those who were there, if they remember it. Maybe they don't or would have a completely different interpretation of what happened.

I don't need proof, for me. I am the proof, of my own life. No one else would believe it anyway....

Explanation accepted. All I ask is that others do not expect me to believe the story based on the paucity of information.

[Raf]

You sound pretty lost here again. "Free vocalization" one more time is a made-up term by linguists lumping together occurrences of languages they didn't understand themselves and the speakers stated they didn't know. The fact they made this term up to be a "kitchen sink" type of a catch-all description, and thus it is not narrow enough to use in a hypothesis test, just goes to illustrate that THEY ARE NOT PROVING ANYTHING.

A made up term that describes a real thing is irrelevant. What matters is that free vocalization labels a real thing. It was not invented to account for SIT, mediums, and other supernatural phenomena. The activity precedes its application to the conversation we're having.

All studied samples fit my "free mouthnoiseization" definition too. What does this prove? You got it. NOTHING. I made up the word to include the samples.

You're belittling and making a mockery of an honest discussion and debate. You really need to stop.

Look, you've convinced yourself that there's no such thing as free vocalization as an innate human ability. All the evidence lines up against you. I won't debate it further. And I won't debate you further. Sorry.

[waysider]

Here is an interesting, though somewhat lengthy, article on glossolalia. Page four offers some insightful information on free vocalization, while not actually using that specific terminology. (For some reason, I'm not able to cut and paste.)

http://www.psihijatrija.com/bibliografija/radovi/Koic%20E%20GLOSSOLALIA%20COLLEGIUM.pdf

[WordWolf]

IIRC,

it was waysider who posted before me about having been in acting classes or the equivalent

and performing "free vocalization" without it being called that.

If it's all right with you, can we reiterate the acting part about that for those in the

studio audience who just tuned in? With some context so those who never did the exercise

can get a sense of what it looks like?

I'll join in, of course. I expect my own experience is shallower than yours.

(I may be wrong on that.)

[socks]

Aaaah...sentence reduced to time served!

*squank!* Next case!

[Raf]

Alas, I do not get to impose my own sentence.

I stand by what I did yesterday. I admit that I should not have been the one to do it. I should have waited for another mod. But I don't think there's anyone here who can argue that the action itself was unjustified.

This thread has become about one person's rejection of free vocalization as an innate human ability. I can understand that, because it is evident to me that if free vocalization exists as a natural explanation for what we all did as SIT, it poses a fatal threat to the notion that SIT is real. No actual evidence distinguishes free vocalization from SIT, so naturally, free vocalization cannot be allowed to be taken as a given. But it is a given. It is an innate human ability. That is not one person's opinion. It is an observable and repeatable fact. It is proved everytime another person does it. (So is blowing bubbles underwater, I confess. But the attempt to belittle free vocalization through the use of absurd analogies will no longer be entertained by me). I will no longer discuss it or defend it, nor will I respond to that poster unless at least one other person agrees that a point has been made that deserves an answer.

If there's anyone reading this who does not believe that speaking in tongues can be faked without that fakery being spiritually energized, speak up and I will answer to the best of my ability. Otherwise, I will consider that discussion closed among those of us treating the subject matter honestly.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Waysider,

I have a problem with studies and presentations that indicate that SIT is connected to dissociation or a trance-like state. It is unfortunate that those studies draw conclusions based on observed evidence while ignoring evidence that we all know to be true, namely, that SIT does not require the speaker to go into any such state. Samarin actually recognizes this and dismisses the psychological findings of Goodman and others who drew similar conclusions. They made a documentable sample error and drew incorrect conclusions based on it. The people they observed may well have gone into such a state, but going into such a state is not a requirement of SIT.

It is for that reason that I have been reluctant to cite Goodman, et. al. They are on strong ground when they actually analyze what is spoken and compare the phonemic strata to the native language of the speaker and to known languages. They are on weaker ground, because of their samples, when they draw psychological conclusions.

Again, this is a documentable and verifiable observation, one that has been made and accounted for by other researchers.

For the past two weeks, I have been trying to track down a case study in which a 61-year-old Pentecostal man practicing SIT produced phonemes that the researcher could not account for in the speaker's native language (English) or any language that person is known to have been in contact with. The researcher's conclusion was that the utterance was "language-like," but he could not identify the language (I'm using that vague term out of fairness. The researcher actually concluded it was not a known language, but I don't know how he came to that conclusion and I am unwilling to repeat it even though the conclusion supports my position). It sounds pretty compelling to me. However, the researcher was an expert in speech, not in linguistics. I do not know what he means by "language-like" and I don't know on what basis he discounted the utterance as a known language. Did he compare the phonemic strata that was observed to the phonemic strata of known languages and fail to find a match? Did he run it past a team of linguists to do the same? We don't know. We only have a rather incomplete description of what the findings were.

The information I have on this study comes second hand from two sources. One is Poythress (I alluded to this MANY pages ago, but it was ignored). The other is a published response to the study accessible on the George Mason University Web site. The published response is interesting for two reasons. First, it provides the majority of the summary of findings that I just gave in the previous paragraph, and second, the person compares THAT research to the raw data (samples, phonemic structure, questionnaires, etc) found in the works of Samarin, Goodman, Kildahl and the other researchers we have been discussing.

Stop and read that last sentence again: an independent researcher was able to access the raw data upon which Samarin based his research and conclusions. This is the raw data that, it has been suggested, does not exist. "You're not sharing it because you don't have it." Remember? I can understand why THAT statement was made, but it is in error. I do have it. I am reviewing it. You can't cite someone's raw data and use it to conduct further research if that raw data has not been collected or published.

I have one issue with the published response to the Pentecostal case study: while I am impressed with the quality of the writing, the documentation, and the evident reliance on raw data (that supposedly does not exist because one person on this thread said so), I have no indication whatsoever of who the writer (other than her name) is or what qualifies her to conduct such a study. Was she a student writing a term paper? Did she get an A? Or was HER review shoddy?

That a non-linguist (the one who did the case study) could not detect a language doesn't impress me. A language may well have been produced, and I will have been proven wrong.

That the same non-linguist could label the utterance "language-like" equally does not impress me. As yet, I do not know his basis for making such an assertion.

But the case study raises a question I must address, one way or another: Can a person engaging in free vocalization produce phonemes with which he is not familiar? There is no earthly reason to suggest he cannot, but we would expect such occurrences to be exceedingly rare (and, in fact, they are: both Poythress and the other independent researcher agree that the case study's findings are anomalous and do not represent the majority of glossolalia that has been studied).

But our foray into the research was never about proving my case to a reasonable scientific confidence interval blah blah blah. It was ALWAYS about looking for any evidence to suggest SIT was producing a language unknown to the speaker.

Science tests hypotheses to determine whether they are true. To do so, they employ the scientific method that has been invoked on this thread multiple times.

But scientists do NOT employ such a method when they are not testing a hypothesis. The relevant scientific activity that WE are looking at involves classification, not hypothesis testing. Classification involves taking an unknown, unidentified or uncategorized object or phenomenon and comparing it to known, identified and categorized objects or phenomena to look for a match.

The hypothesis that SIT is free vocalization has not been tested. This is not a failure to employ the scientific method resulting in shoddy research. Is a person riding a bicycle doing a poor job of driving a car? No! He's doing something completely different. You don't condemn a bicyclist as a poor driver just because he isn't hitting the gas pedal to accelerate!

Samarin and the other researchers were engaged in the classification of glossolalia. They were not testing a hypothesis that it's indistinguishable from free vocalization. They were classifying it and failed to detect any properties that distinguish it from (what has later been labeled) free vocalization. And that is a scientifically valid means of arriving at that conclusion.

In all the research that we have reviewed on glossolalia, no scientist engaged in the valid exercise of classification has classified a sample as a known language. As of this writing, I am aware of a single anomalous finding -- still not classified as a language, but described as "language-like" (whatever that means) and producing phonemes not native to the speaker. I am eagerly searching for more information about that anomaly. Maybe it proves me wrong. Maybe it doesn't prove me wrong, but maybe it comes close enough to doing so for the purpose of a bunch of amateurs posting on a message board.

I was relucant to share even this much information. I have seen the dishonest way research is handled on this thread when we know exactly who the researchers are and what their findings are. When we have limited information about the researchers and no access to the research itself, I can imagine that the speculation will run wild.

But I am confident enough in my position that I will divulge as much as I have. I have given interested readers enough information to track this stuff down on their own. I welcome the challenge -- from honest debaters. Those who insist they have 11 fingers because they won't think hard enough to recognize the flaw in the chain of logic that led to that conclusion need not apply.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

IIRC,

it was waysider who posted before me about having been in acting classes or the equivalent

and performing "free vocalization" without it being called that.

My argument with the term stands. It was invented by people trying to evaluate the charismatic movement and contains inappropriate inclusions, including medium conversations with spirit guides.

The minute you guys can show me how that is included in whatever you were performing in acting classes, I'll withdraw my opposition to the term.

[chockfull]

Alas, I do not get to impose my own sentence.

I stand by what I did yesterday. I admit that I should not have been the one to do it. I should have waited for another mod. But I don't think there's anyone here who can argue that the action itself was unjustified.

Then instead of abusing mod power you should have asked another mod to do it and waited until they did. I probably won't continue a conversation with you because of the dishonesty involved in this action shutting down opposing viewpoints.

This thread has become about one person's rejection of free vocalization as an innate human ability. I can understand that, because it is evident to me that if free vocalization exists as a natural explanation for what we all did as SIT, it poses a fatal threat to the notion that SIT is real. No actual evidence distinguishes free vocalization from SIT, so naturally, free vocalization cannot be allowed to be taken as a given. But it IS a given. Ut is an innate human ability. That is not one person's opinion. It is an observable and repeatable fact. It is proved averytime another person does it. I will no longer discuss it or defend it, nor will I respond to that poster unless at least one other person agrees that a point has been made that deserves an answer.

I would suggest at this point that you are too spun up or upset or whatever to continue this conversation. I have brought up valid logical opposing points to automatically classifying anything in this by the term "free vocalization". In my opinion, this is winning an argument by defining the terms in a dishonest way to obtain an advantage. It ONE MORE TIME is circular logic to define the term "free vocalization" to include any act of producing a phonetic result that someone else doesn't understand, then to supposedly "prove" that SIT is "free vocalization" by saying it has a similar phonetic result that isn't understood.

There is NO PROOF involved here at all, simply a too broad definition, then a lot of harping on similar characteristics with other IMO completely non-similar events. Even if I concede the definition, IT PROVES NOTHING ABOUT SIT.

If there's anyone reading this who does not believe that speaking in tongues can be faked without that fakery being spiritually energized, speak up and I will answer to the best of my ability. Otherwise, I will consider that discussion closed among those of us treating the subject matter honestly.

But you are not treating the subject matter honestly. I believe that SIT can be faked, and depending on how closely you scrutinize the result, the fakery could be as simple as we used to do speaking Pig Latin as children.

Edited October 31, 2012 by chockfull