I could be mistaken, but I do believe we are not dealing with people who have no familiarity with the English language. Sorry. Think about it. They have literally sat through hours and hours and hours of information presented in English and translated for them, information that they are religiously interested in. SIT is what, two sentences? If someone told you this story to support Islam you would reject it before they reached the h in Allah.
The natural explanations are all more plausible than "they spoke in tongues and it was English."
1. They knew more English than they let on.
2. They practiced, knowing they would be in the USA.
3. Someone's fibbing about the whole story.
Knowing nothing else, I think a combination of 1 and 2 fits the facts quite neatly.
By the way, whatever happened to "no man understandeth"? Is that only applicable in firsthand situations?
Sorry, I had to. I know, I said I'd shut up. But I didn't expect a whole new anecdote when I said that.
Sorry I just get sick to my stomach when thinking about calling one of those 2 up to get more detail. I just can't do it, don't want to open up old history. Even if they would talk to me which is probably a no.
I could be mistaken, but I do believe we are not dealing with people who have no familiarity with the English language. Sorry. Think about it. They have literally sat through hours and hours and hours of information presented in English and translated for them, information that they are religiously interested in. SIT is what, two sentences? If someone told you this story to support Islam you would reject it before they reached the h in Allah.
The natural explanations are all more plausible than "they spoke in tongues and it was English."
1. They knew more English than they let on.
2. They practiced, knowing they would be in the USA.
3. Someone's fibbing about the whole story.
Knowing nothing else, I think a combination of 1 and 2 fits the facts quite neatly.
By the way, whatever happened to "no man understandeth"? Is that only applicable in firsthand situations?
Sorry, I had to. I know, I said I'd shut up. But I didn't expect a whole new anecdote when I said that.
So here we are performing an exercise of "does your story fit into my pre-determined belief conclusion"?
And the answer is yes with a shoehorn?
Yes all of the above could apply. However, the story as narrated to me was speech the individual determined to be well beyond any possible native English vocabulary the speaker had, and remarkably contrasting to any language knowlege in normal conversation outside the incident. Meaning they tried to speak English to the man and he could not converse without an interpreter. Could he secretly have hidden all this and have been in cahoots with the interpreter.
Sure. Or a 100 other possibilities.
The "no man understandeth" - typically Pentecost violates this right? by a miraculous act?
Wow - so because I committed the sin of defending the truth it is a "tell" and thus SIT is false. How bout you take accountability for your own beliefs and stop trying to guilt trip me that I didn't defend truth well enough when doing so is a sin anyway?
I can't defend SIT - I do it by faith.
I can't defend point, line and plane in geometry either by the way.
B and C - look those points are easily refutable by finding a checklist from one of those authors. I didn't read one where I was selectively skipping parts. I didnt' read one at all.
I drew logical conclusions before addressing your posts on that thread. Cease guilt-tripping yourself. I felt a lot more secure about my conclusions after reading them, but I'd already drawn them. As I've said. If you read my posts the same way you read the studies, then I know why we disagree on the results. Oh, and "defending the truth" isn't how devout Christian cessationists would view it. Wait-you didn't read their work, which included their criteria, their "checklists"? That explains a lot.
Honest and for true, I'm trying not to get sucked back into ALL of what we already previously hashed out and left unresolved, but...
My memory may be flawed, but I think part of the difficulty regarding "criteria" had to do with the fact that the criteria were inadequate to the question we were asking. That is, "SIT by definition is not used by one person to communicate with another person. Language is. Therefore, SIT is not language." Heck, even I can see the flaw in that logic, so I refuse to make the "criteria" argument without listing the criteria in question, some of which are simply not applicable because when we're talking about SIT, we're not talking about people communicating with each other.
This goes back to what I discussed earlier with phonemic inventory, which does use the expertise of linguists with the express purpose of seeking to determine whether a person practicing SIT is producing a known language.
The logic goes like this: Every language has a distinct phonemic inventory.
Every SIT sample has a distinct phonemic inventory.
Conceivably, we should be able to take the phonemic inventory of SIT and match it to a known language, THEN determine whether the actual words and sentences match the language. Presto! Evidence!
It doesn't happen. Time and again, when such things have been studied, the phonemic inventory comes back to the speaker's native language, with allowances made for phonemes the person has encountered (Chappy Chanukah!). English speakers who SIT produce rearranged English phonemes, not distinct languages. Likewise for Spanish, French, etc. Chockfull's shower time notwithstanding.
Yes, we can anticipate that not every SIT will be matched to a particular language. The SIT may match the phonemic inventories of multiple languages (the longer the sample, the fewer matches).
But again, this goes back to something I said earlier: WE ONLY NEED ONE CONFIRMED MATCH OF SIT-TO-LANGUAGE FOR ME TO BE WRONG. One. A. Single. Match.
There are plenty of reasons to expect that a particular sample won't match a language. There is no logical reason to think that hundreds, thousands of people SIT on a regular basis and no one can verify it except -- exclusively -- through tales of long ago involving people we conveniently can't find anymore. Here's a good rule of thumb: If you wouldn't accept an argument in defense of a competing religion's claims, do not expect me to accept the same argument in defense of SIT.
Honest and for true, I'm trying not to get sucked back into ALL of what we already previously hashed out and left unresolved, but...
My memory may be flawed, but I think part of the difficulty regarding "criteria" had to do with the fact that the criteria were inadequate to the question we were asking. That is, "SIT by definition is not used by one person to communicate with another person. Language is. Therefore, SIT is not language." Heck, even I can see the flaw in that logic, so I refuse to make the "criteria" argument without listing the criteria in question, some of which are simply not applicable because when we're talking about SIT, we're not talking about people communicating with each other.
This goes back to what I discussed earlier with phonemic inventory, which does use the expertise of linguists with the express purpose of seeking to determine whether a person practicing SIT is producing a known language.
The logic goes like this: Every language has a distinct phonemic inventory.
Every SIT sample has a distinct phonemic inventory.
Conceivably, we should be able to take the phonemic inventory of SIT and match it to a known language, THEN determine whether the actual words and sentences match the language. Presto! Evidence!
It doesn't happen. Time and again, when such things have been studied, the phonemic inventory comes back to the speaker's native language, with allowances made for phonemes the person has encountered (Chappy Chanukah!). English speakers who SIT produce rearranged English phonemes, not distinct languages. Likewise for Spanish, French, etc. Chockfull's shower time notwithstanding.
Yes, we can anticipate that not every SIT will be matched to a particular language. The SIT may match the phonemic inventories of multiple languages (the longer the sample, the fewer matches).
But again, this goes back to something I said earlier: WE ONLY NEED ONE CONFIRMED MATCH OF SIT-TO-LANGUAGE FOR ME TO BE WRONG. One. A. Single. Match.
There are plenty of reasons to expect that a particular sample won't match a language. There is no logical reason to think that hundreds, thousands of people SIT on a regular basis and no one can verify it except -- exclusively -- through tales of long ago involving people we conveniently can't find anymore. Here's a good rule of thumb: If you wouldn't accept an argument in defense of a competing religion's claims, do not expect me to accept the same argument in defense of SIT.
Your logic has flaws from the major premise. "Every language has a distinct phonemic inventory". Actually many languages with common roots have common sounds they make, (phonemic inventory - your words). For example, romance languages - Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese all possibly share the same or at least very very similar common sounds. As a result, it's easier to understand one if you already understand another.
"Allowances made for phonemes the person has encountered" Ha!
So now we are dialing back the argument because it doesn't fit to "phonemes the person has encountered" ???? Not just ones associated with the languages they speak? Sorry that still won't fit even my personal experience.
If there is a Biblical passage that tells you to expect not to understand this SIT language, then do you think God would be able to supersede silly human attempts to bypass that by analysis? It could be something as simple as shutting down a spiritual connection while you are filming and letting a person babble or something.
On 3/14/2017 at 11:25 PM, WordWolf said:
I drew logical conclusions before addressing your posts on that thread. Cease guilt-tripping yourself. I felt a lot more secure about my conclusions after reading them, but I'd already drawn them. As I've said. If you read my posts the same way you read the studies, then I know why we disagree on the results. Oh, and "defending the truth" isn't how devout Christian cessationists would view it. Wait-you didn't read their work, which included their criteria, their "checklists"? That explains a lot.
WW I was addressing this comment " I like you, chockfull, really I do, but your posts on that long thread helped convince me my previous position was wrong. Your approach to the discussion said quite a bit. "
This is not me guilt-tripping myself. This is you not owning up to your own words. Even now. Your first bold post contradicts what you are saying in your above post about already having your conclusions drawn.
What I read in that research was discourse and discussion on languages, but not checklists. The checklist idea was introduced by both you and Raf, when you are trying to convey your belief that SIT fails to fulfill a checklist of characteristics of language. I found that to be false information, and I found it to slant material I read in a way that the original authors did not slant it. So now for the 3rd time I'm asking you to produce this magical "checklist" that I didn't read. I'll be happy to read it now if I'm wrong. If you can't then we can just agree together that it never existed besides you and Raf making it up and that you and Raf invented a checklist to prove your beliefs.
Mocking my comments does not discredit them. If you're familiar with a phoneme, you can incorporate it into SIT without a supernatural explanation. That is perfectly sound logic, and to treat it as a "gotcha" makes no sense. Of COURSE you can incorporate phonemes you're aware of, even if they're part of a language you don't speak. The issue is you're aware of them, and this is in the literature. It's not "made up" to account for anything.
If two languages share a phonemic inventory, and a sample of SIT fits that inventory, then it should be a piece of cake to determine whether the SIT matches any of those languages. So far, hasn't happened. Still waiting. Not holding my breath. Assuming you are correct and there are languages that share phonemic inventories, dandy! We still have ZERO documented examples of SIT producing a known language (barring unverifiable anecdotes whose participants are conveniently a. anonymous and b. half a world away).
You can ask for the checklist that you've already reviewed many times, if you'd like. I don't see why you're arguing with me on a point on which we agree: the "what makes it a language" checklist did not apply to our discussion. You are correct. Now you want me to prove that you're right? Why? For you to accuse me of "making it up..." damn, bro, that's false and you KNOW it. Especially after I just agreed with you on the subject. I didn't make up jack, and I can't help it if you don't remember the very checklists we discussed and agreed were irrelevant to our discussion. That's YOUR faulty memory, not mine. Do not accuse me of making s* up just because your memory failed.
2 hours ago, chockfull said:
If there is a Biblical passage that tells you to expect not to understand this SIT language, then do you think God would be able to supersede silly human attempts to bypass that by analysis? It could be something as simple as shutting down a spiritual connection while you are filming and letting a person babble or something.
Convenient. Cop out, though. Sorry, it is. It is exactly the kind of explanation you expect from someone trying to explain why you should not expect to find evidence for your claim. It's the dragon in the garage principle.
"I have a dragon in my garage."
Oh yeah? Let me see it.
"It's invisible."
Ok. Let me feel it. Let's throw a blanket over it or something.
"It's incorporeal. That won't work."
Fine, let's use infrared.
"That won't work either. It's non-thermal."
Joo no, I's starting to sink joo no has a dragon in joo garage.
[Concept stolen from Carl Sagan].
Look, you make a testable claim, and then when someone tests it, you start going through logical somersaults to avoid the test. It's not a human language. The connection is shut off when people are watching. It's non-thermal.
Meanwhile, the people being recorded don't think they're faking it when they're doing it "while you are filming," which means by your definitionthey are faking it without realizing they are faking it, which is exactly my thesis in the first place. I say we all did that and you're all doing it! Not that you lack sincerity. Not that you're bad people. You're just not doing anything supernatural. If you were, you'd be producing languages. You're not, because you're not.
So, to mix humor from another thread, maybe it's time for people to get out of the Nile!
One of the things that confuses me is how both you two have walked back in your mind and logical arguments the fact established that whether or not languages are produced you previously agreed is not provable one way or another, based upon research.
Now it's a assumed fact in your argument that it is not.
For folks that claim to have science as your main influence and guide, this is puzzling indeed. It does illustrate to me how faith is the center of people's being, though. Your convictions and beliefs about this field taint your view of the facts, and you extol what fits and reject what doesn't fit. Just exactly like fundamentalist Christians do.
Out of politeness, I changed my vocabulary from "They are not producing languages" to "they cannot prove they are producing languages." This is out of deference to the argument that they could be speaking a pre-Tower of Babel (fictional incident) language that has not been heard since the days of Nimrod. If I have been imperfect in my articulation, I am sorry. I continue to wait for one single solitary documented incident of producing a known human language that was not performed or observed thirdhand involving anonymous participants who are no longer on the same side of the planet as those of us saying "prove it."
One more time for the people in the back. I don't have to prove it's not a language. You have to prove it is. But all you do is declare that it is and then try to shift the burden to me to prove it's not based on something you heard yourself say in the shower. If I were calling B.S. on a Muslim using the same argument, you would be standing right beside me
Truth be told, I am being overly polite in making the concession that these could be undetected languages. They're not. But there's no way to prove it and, more to the point, there's no need. "They are producing a language" is an affirmative claim, and the burden of proof for an affirmative claim lies with the person making it, not the person denying it.
It boils down to the major weakness of my thesis, which is still stronger than its antithesis: because my claim is that ALL SIT is fake, I can be proved wrong BY ONE person producing a language. ONE. Hasn't happened, except in your shower and among anonymous Asians and Africans conveniently unavailable for verification.
Nothing in this resurrected discussion is new. If someone's GOT some evidence to share, I'm down. But this incessant "you can't prove it's not a language" directed at people who do not have the burden of proof in the FIRST place has begun to bore me.
Produce a language, prove it, or nothing you say is new.
This isn't faith. Faith is believing it's a language without a scrap of evidence to prove it, while making excuse after excuse after excuse why the results we detect are completely consistent with my thesis and not consistent with yours. Calling it "faith" doesn't make it so. And calling it "not disproven" doesn't make it a language.
One of the things that confuses me is how both you two have walked back in your mind and logical arguments the fact established that whether or not languages are produced you previously agreed is not provable one way or another, based upon research.
Now it's a assumed fact in your argument that it is not.
For folks that claim to have science as your main influence and guide, this is puzzling indeed. It does illustrate to me how faith is the center of people's being, though. Your convictions and beliefs about this field taint your view of the facts, and you extol what fits and reject what doesn't fit. Just exactly like fundamentalist Christians do.
I made exactly ONE TYPO. I owned up to it, and pointed out it was lack of sleep that led me to make that MISTAKE. The MISTAKE was that I said they didn't produce a language (and gave an example of an identified language.) What I MEANT TO SAY (AND CORRECTED MYSELF AS RIGHT AFTER THAT) was that they failed to produce an IDENTIFIED LANGUAGE. Everything else I said before and after that was consistent with that, and I made no attempt to defend the ONE ERROR I made. It's either SLOPPY (you didn't notice) or DISHONEST (you noticed but you pretended you didn't because it was to your benefit to pretend I was being inconsistent) to claim otherwise.
For anyone else, there really shouldn't be any confusion or inconsistency.
Oh, and if anyone out there can actually articulate to chockfull what I said, please do so. It's obvious chockfull's going to pretend I never took credit for my position change AND PUT ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY ON HIM- rather than claim I made up my mind approximately and he helped me feel more secure about my decision, to seal the deal. I'm getting tired of explaining it to him, and getting back that either I'm blaming him entirely or being inconsistent. I'm done with this point because it's useless and we're just circling.
Close your eyes and go back in time to the days of excellor sessions.
"Johnny, bring forth a tongue that has all the words beginning with the letter B sound.-- Uh huh Uh huh.-- very good.-- Now bring forth a tongue while you sell me this syllabus.--Good job, Johnny."
Now open your eyes again and try to count all the red flags that are waving all over the place.
Mainly because he claimed to have spoke in tongues an incredible amount yet theres no evidence of paul ever saying he spoke in tongues to witness to others or convert them etc. It seems he spoke in tongues personally to God. Which would refute the claim that unless the tongues you speak in are understandable by some other person that they aren't real tongues.
This is what we call a "non-sequitur." It is when you connect two concepts as though one proves the other, although one doesn't actually prove the other.
You know, I really don't appreciate your attributing that statement to me, Raf. It's not only disingenuous, but quite frankly, gives plenty of reason to question your intention in doing so.
The attribution is a GSC glitch, the accidental result of highlighting the quote from your post. I did not address any statement at you personally, but at the content of the quote.
I just went in as a moderator and tried to fix the attribution. Unfortunately, the site does not give moderators that option. Anyone who sees my original post can see from the post RIGHT ABOVE IT that you are not the originator of the quote.
And frankly i think youre predisposed to question my intentions in the first place, which would concern me if i had an ounce of respect for your discussion methods. That not being the case, "La Vie!"
The attribution is a GSC glitch, the accidental result of highlighting the quote from your post. I did not address any statement at you personally, but at the content of the quote.
If so, then I'll accept it as that. Thank you for the clarification.
When I have time, I'll return to this thread for further comment.
On 3/12/2017 at 11:56 PM, ImLikeSoConfused said:
When paul for instance said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else, who was he speaking these tongues to? Other people or by himself privately to god?
On 3/12/2017 at 5:16 PM, ImLikeSoConfused said:
Mainly because he claimed to have spoke in tongues an incredible amount yet theres no evidence of paul ever saying he spoke in tongues to witness to others or convert them etc. It seems he spoke in tongues personally to God.
So, I guess no one cares to give any attention to these comments, nor respond to my previously posted question as to what benefit anyone might suppose is inherently associated with Paul's speaking "with tongues more than ye all"...
You want to make the comparison to Sagan's dragon in the garage?
Well then, what can or does this dragon do? Something unique or different perhaps? Or what is a reason or purpose for having a dragon in the garage? Why is this question not asked? Because if something is done which only a dragon in the garage can do, well... you can figure out the rest.
Known or unknown, recognized or identifiable as a "language" or not... if it serves the same purpose and/or achieves the same benefits... does anything else about it really matter?
It's probably down to irrelevance. We're not even having the same discussion. One discussion is "ARE they the same thing? Let's look at the evidence..." and the other discussion is "SINCE they're the same thing, the evidence doesn't matter..."
You want to make the comparison to Sagan's dragon in the garage?
Well then, what can or does this dragon do? Something unique or different perhaps? Or what is a reason or purpose for having a dragon in the garage? Why is this question not asked? Because if something is done which only a dragon in the garage can do, well... you can figure out the rest.
The comparison has already been made. The comparison focuses on existence vs. nonexistence. Comparisons beyond that would be straw man in nature until existence is established.
If something is done that only a dragon in the garage can do...
Then you will have established that you have a dragon. But you f-ing don't, and this is getting boring. That is actually this whole discussion in a nutshell. You claim this dragon can do something, I'm saying prove it, and you're saying I can't disprove it. I have no obligation to disprove it. Prove it can, or there's nothing to discuss.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
95
23
22
27
Popular Days
Mar 23
59
Mar 14
36
Mar 20
32
Mar 13
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 95 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
waysider 22 posts
chockfull 27 posts
Popular Days
Mar 23 2017
59 posts
Mar 14 2017
36 posts
Mar 20 2017
32 posts
Mar 13 2017
16 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
The purpose of Speaking in Tongues is to loosen people minds, or, reduce critical thinking enough that they will accept TWI doctrine and direction. It aids in building non-coherency. It is a sig
Bolshevik
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted? . . . what? . . . THAT didn'
Raf
It's almost impossible to believe this is an honest question. What good would it do to objectively prove the supernatural? He seriously asked that question. First off, it would win the
Raf
And no motive to lie there!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I could be mistaken, but I do believe we are not dealing with people who have no familiarity with the English language. Sorry. Think about it. They have literally sat through hours and hours and hours of information presented in English and translated for them, information that they are religiously interested in. SIT is what, two sentences? If someone told you this story to support Islam you would reject it before they reached the h in Allah.
The natural explanations are all more plausible than "they spoke in tongues and it was English."
1. They knew more English than they let on.
2. They practiced, knowing they would be in the USA.
3. Someone's fibbing about the whole story.
Knowing nothing else, I think a combination of 1 and 2 fits the facts quite neatly.
By the way, whatever happened to "no man understandeth"? Is that only applicable in firsthand situations?
Sorry, I had to. I know, I said I'd shut up. But I didn't expect a whole new anecdote when I said that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah.
Sorry I just get sick to my stomach when thinking about calling one of those 2 up to get more detail. I just can't do it, don't want to open up old history. Even if they would talk to me which is probably a no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So here we are performing an exercise of "does your story fit into my pre-determined belief conclusion"?
And the answer is yes with a shoehorn?
Yes all of the above could apply. However, the story as narrated to me was speech the individual determined to be well beyond any possible native English vocabulary the speaker had, and remarkably contrasting to any language knowlege in normal conversation outside the incident. Meaning they tried to speak English to the man and he could not converse without an interpreter. Could he secretly have hidden all this and have been in cahoots with the interpreter.
Sure. Or a 100 other possibilities.
The "no man understandeth" - typically Pentecost violates this right? by a miraculous act?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No shoehorn necessary!
I think MY bottom line is that there are so many natural explanations that a supernatural explanation is by definition less plausible.
But we can disagree. Wouldn't be the first time.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I drew logical conclusions before addressing your posts on that thread. Cease guilt-tripping yourself. I felt a lot more secure about my conclusions after reading them, but I'd already drawn them. As I've said. If you read my posts the same way you read the studies, then I know why we disagree on the results. Oh, and "defending the truth" isn't how devout Christian cessationists would view it. Wait-you didn't read their work, which included their criteria, their "checklists"? That explains a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Honest and for true, I'm trying not to get sucked back into ALL of what we already previously hashed out and left unresolved, but...
My memory may be flawed, but I think part of the difficulty regarding "criteria" had to do with the fact that the criteria were inadequate to the question we were asking. That is, "SIT by definition is not used by one person to communicate with another person. Language is. Therefore, SIT is not language." Heck, even I can see the flaw in that logic, so I refuse to make the "criteria" argument without listing the criteria in question, some of which are simply not applicable because when we're talking about SIT, we're not talking about people communicating with each other.
This goes back to what I discussed earlier with phonemic inventory, which does use the expertise of linguists with the express purpose of seeking to determine whether a person practicing SIT is producing a known language.
The logic goes like this: Every language has a distinct phonemic inventory.
Every SIT sample has a distinct phonemic inventory.
Conceivably, we should be able to take the phonemic inventory of SIT and match it to a known language, THEN determine whether the actual words and sentences match the language. Presto! Evidence!
It doesn't happen. Time and again, when such things have been studied, the phonemic inventory comes back to the speaker's native language, with allowances made for phonemes the person has encountered (Chappy Chanukah!). English speakers who SIT produce rearranged English phonemes, not distinct languages. Likewise for Spanish, French, etc. Chockfull's shower time notwithstanding.
Yes, we can anticipate that not every SIT will be matched to a particular language. The SIT may match the phonemic inventories of multiple languages (the longer the sample, the fewer matches).
But again, this goes back to something I said earlier: WE ONLY NEED ONE CONFIRMED MATCH OF SIT-TO-LANGUAGE FOR ME TO BE WRONG. One. A. Single. Match.
There are plenty of reasons to expect that a particular sample won't match a language. There is no logical reason to think that hundreds, thousands of people SIT on a regular basis and no one can verify it except -- exclusively -- through tales of long ago involving people we conveniently can't find anymore. Here's a good rule of thumb: If you wouldn't accept an argument in defense of a competing religion's claims, do not expect me to accept the same argument in defense of SIT.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Your logic has flaws from the major premise. "Every language has a distinct phonemic inventory". Actually many languages with common roots have common sounds they make, (phonemic inventory - your words). For example, romance languages - Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese all possibly share the same or at least very very similar common sounds. As a result, it's easier to understand one if you already understand another.
"Allowances made for phonemes the person has encountered" Ha!
So now we are dialing back the argument because it doesn't fit to "phonemes the person has encountered" ???? Not just ones associated with the languages they speak? Sorry that still won't fit even my personal experience.
If there is a Biblical passage that tells you to expect not to understand this SIT language, then do you think God would be able to supersede silly human attempts to bypass that by analysis? It could be something as simple as shutting down a spiritual connection while you are filming and letting a person babble or something.
WW I was addressing this comment " I like you, chockfull, really I do, but your posts on that long thread helped convince me my previous position was wrong. Your approach to the discussion said quite a bit. "
This is not me guilt-tripping myself. This is you not owning up to your own words. Even now. Your first bold post contradicts what you are saying in your above post about already having your conclusions drawn.
What I read in that research was discourse and discussion on languages, but not checklists. The checklist idea was introduced by both you and Raf, when you are trying to convey your belief that SIT fails to fulfill a checklist of characteristics of language. I found that to be false information, and I found it to slant material I read in a way that the original authors did not slant it. So now for the 3rd time I'm asking you to produce this magical "checklist" that I didn't read. I'll be happy to read it now if I'm wrong. If you can't then we can just agree together that it never existed besides you and Raf making it up and that you and Raf invented a checklist to prove your beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mocking my comments does not discredit them. If you're familiar with a phoneme, you can incorporate it into SIT without a supernatural explanation. That is perfectly sound logic, and to treat it as a "gotcha" makes no sense. Of COURSE you can incorporate phonemes you're aware of, even if they're part of a language you don't speak. The issue is you're aware of them, and this is in the literature. It's not "made up" to account for anything.
If two languages share a phonemic inventory, and a sample of SIT fits that inventory, then it should be a piece of cake to determine whether the SIT matches any of those languages. So far, hasn't happened. Still waiting. Not holding my breath. Assuming you are correct and there are languages that share phonemic inventories, dandy! We still have ZERO documented examples of SIT producing a known language (barring unverifiable anecdotes whose participants are conveniently a. anonymous and b. half a world away).
You can ask for the checklist that you've already reviewed many times, if you'd like. I don't see why you're arguing with me on a point on which we agree: the "what makes it a language" checklist did not apply to our discussion. You are correct. Now you want me to prove that you're right? Why? For you to accuse me of "making it up..." damn, bro, that's false and you KNOW it. Especially after I just agreed with you on the subject. I didn't make up jack, and I can't help it if you don't remember the very checklists we discussed and agreed were irrelevant to our discussion. That's YOUR faulty memory, not mine. Do not accuse me of making s* up just because your memory failed.
Convenient. Cop out, though. Sorry, it is. It is exactly the kind of explanation you expect from someone trying to explain why you should not expect to find evidence for your claim. It's the dragon in the garage principle.
"I have a dragon in my garage."
Oh yeah? Let me see it.
"It's invisible."
Ok. Let me feel it. Let's throw a blanket over it or something.
"It's incorporeal. That won't work."
Fine, let's use infrared.
"That won't work either. It's non-thermal."
Joo no, I's starting to sink joo no has a dragon in joo garage.
[Concept stolen from Carl Sagan].
Look, you make a testable claim, and then when someone tests it, you start going through logical somersaults to avoid the test. It's not a human language. The connection is shut off when people are watching. It's non-thermal.
Meanwhile, the people being recorded don't think they're faking it when they're doing it "while you are filming," which means by your definition they are faking it without realizing they are faking it, which is exactly my thesis in the first place. I say we all did that and you're all doing it! Not that you lack sincerity. Not that you're bad people. You're just not doing anything supernatural. If you were, you'd be producing languages. You're not, because you're not.
So, to mix humor from another thread, maybe it's time for people to get out of the Nile!
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
One of the things that confuses me is how both you two have walked back in your mind and logical arguments the fact established that whether or not languages are produced you previously agreed is not provable one way or another, based upon research.
Now it's a assumed fact in your argument that it is not.
For folks that claim to have science as your main influence and guide, this is puzzling indeed. It does illustrate to me how faith is the center of people's being, though. Your convictions and beliefs about this field taint your view of the facts, and you extol what fits and reject what doesn't fit. Just exactly like fundamentalist Christians do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Out of politeness, I changed my vocabulary from "They are not producing languages" to "they cannot prove they are producing languages." This is out of deference to the argument that they could be speaking a pre-Tower of Babel (fictional incident) language that has not been heard since the days of Nimrod. If I have been imperfect in my articulation, I am sorry. I continue to wait for one single solitary documented incident of producing a known human language that was not performed or observed thirdhand involving anonymous participants who are no longer on the same side of the planet as those of us saying "prove it."
One more time for the people in the back. I don't have to prove it's not a language. You have to prove it is. But all you do is declare that it is and then try to shift the burden to me to prove it's not based on something you heard yourself say in the shower. If I were calling B.S. on a Muslim using the same argument, you would be standing right beside me
Truth be told, I am being overly polite in making the concession that these could be undetected languages. They're not. But there's no way to prove it and, more to the point, there's no need. "They are producing a language" is an affirmative claim, and the burden of proof for an affirmative claim lies with the person making it, not the person denying it.
It boils down to the major weakness of my thesis, which is still stronger than its antithesis: because my claim is that ALL SIT is fake, I can be proved wrong BY ONE person producing a language. ONE. Hasn't happened, except in your shower and among anonymous Asians and Africans conveniently unavailable for verification.
Nothing in this resurrected discussion is new. If someone's GOT some evidence to share, I'm down. But this incessant "you can't prove it's not a language" directed at people who do not have the burden of proof in the FIRST place has begun to bore me.
Produce a language, prove it, or nothing you say is new.
This isn't faith. Faith is believing it's a language without a scrap of evidence to prove it, while making excuse after excuse after excuse why the results we detect are completely consistent with my thesis and not consistent with yours. Calling it "faith" doesn't make it so. And calling it "not disproven" doesn't make it a language.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I made exactly ONE TYPO. I owned up to it, and pointed out it was lack of sleep that led me to make that MISTAKE. The MISTAKE was that I said they didn't produce a language (and gave an example of an identified language.) What I MEANT TO SAY (AND CORRECTED MYSELF AS RIGHT AFTER THAT) was that they failed to produce an IDENTIFIED LANGUAGE. Everything else I said before and after that was consistent with that, and I made no attempt to defend the ONE ERROR I made. It's either SLOPPY (you didn't notice) or DISHONEST (you noticed but you pretended you didn't because it was to your benefit to pretend I was being inconsistent) to claim otherwise.
For anyone else, there really shouldn't be any confusion or inconsistency.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oh, and if anyone out there can actually articulate to chockfull what I said, please do so. It's obvious chockfull's going to pretend I never took credit for my position change AND PUT ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY ON HIM- rather than claim I made up my mind approximately and he helped me feel more secure about my decision, to seal the deal. I'm getting tired of explaining it to him, and getting back that either I'm blaming him entirely or being inconsistent. I'm done with this point because it's useless and we're just circling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Close your eyes and go back in time to the days of excellor sessions.
"Johnny, bring forth a tongue that has all the words beginning with the letter B sound.-- Uh huh Uh huh.-- very good.-- Now bring forth a tongue while you sell me this syllabus.--Good job, Johnny."
Now open your eyes again and try to count all the red flags that are waving all over the place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You know, I really don't appreciate your attributing that statement to me, Raf. It's not only disingenuous, but quite frankly, gives plenty of reason to question your intention in doing so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The attribution is a GSC glitch, the accidental result of highlighting the quote from your post. I did not address any statement at you personally, but at the content of the quote.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
I just went in as a moderator and tried to fix the attribution. Unfortunately, the site does not give moderators that option. Anyone who sees my original post can see from the post RIGHT ABOVE IT that you are not the originator of the quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And frankly i think youre predisposed to question my intentions in the first place, which would concern me if i had an ounce of respect for your discussion methods. That not being the case, "La Vie!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If so, then I'll accept it as that. Thank you for the clarification.
When I have time, I'll return to this thread for further comment.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can't contain my exci.... oops. Almost spoke too soon. It's contained. In a broken Ziploc. No danger of spills though
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, I guess no one cares to give any attention to these comments, nor respond to my previously posted question as to what benefit anyone might suppose is inherently associated with Paul's speaking "with tongues more than ye all"...
You want to make the comparison to Sagan's dragon in the garage?
Well then, what can or does this dragon do? Something unique or different perhaps? Or what is a reason or purpose for having a dragon in the garage? Why is this question not asked? Because if something is done which only a dragon in the garage can do, well... you can figure out the rest.
Known or unknown, recognized or identifiable as a "language" or not... if it serves the same purpose and/or achieves the same benefits... does anything else about it really matter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's probably down to irrelevance. We're not even having the same discussion. One discussion is "ARE they the same thing? Let's look at the evidence..." and the other discussion is "SINCE they're the same thing, the evidence doesn't matter..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The comparison has already been made. The comparison focuses on existence vs. nonexistence. Comparisons beyond that would be straw man in nature until existence is established.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What can the dragon do?
You don't have a Dragon.
Is it something unique?
You don't have a dragon.
Why is that question not asked?
Because you don't have a dragon.
If something is done that only a dragon in the garage can do...
Then you will have established that you have a dragon. But you f-ing don't, and this is getting boring. That is actually this whole discussion in a nutshell. You claim this dragon can do something, I'm saying prove it, and you're saying I can't disprove it. I have no obligation to disprove it. Prove it can, or there's nothing to discuss.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.