Appeal to Abstract Authority - a never ending fallacy by materialists
backspace
Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
appeal to abstract authority.
http://www.psychohistorian.org/atheism/ellisnoma.html
"....Recent Templeton Foundation prize winner Prof George Ellis
(Applied Mathematics, UCT) has elaborated on this in his lucid essay
"Science and Religion: A personal view of their relation....."
How could Mr.Science and Mr.Religion have a relation if they don't
exist ? What is he really trying to say. For this we need to know what
is the materialist assumptions and world views. They believe that
matter created language, theists that language created matter. Neither
of these world views can be proven or disproven. What is the intent
then with "science" from the materialists? It is a proxy word for
their materialist superstitions. 'Science' is not defined, nobody
knows what the word is supposed to mean. Everybody uses it to
communicate some form of intent and this intent differs from person to
person. A word like "selection" is defined by its synonyms such as
choice, decision and preference, but "science" what intent are we
trying to communicate with this word?
Materialists use it as a rhetorical device when arguing from authority
regularly invoking the non-existent person Mr.Science with statements
such as "...science says so.." and science says nothing. What they are
really trying to say is that from their assumptions that their
thoughts are created by atoms bouncing inside their head - matter
creates language - that they as materialists decree by their authority
as the secular hight priests of society that such and such is so.
These debates in evolution should start from what is the person's
personal religious beliefs. I believe Language created matter and
materialists the reverse. I think their position is preposterous they
think mine is ridiculous.
How could either be proven? It can't of course all we can do is
motivate for our position as below:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003074237AAG26mw
"...Are what we call thoughts and ideas necessarily determined by the
atoms bouncing around in our heads the way atoms bounce around in
solar systems? If our minds consist of nothing more than the same
matter that makes up the rest of the universe, one may be tempted to
answer, yes. But, then the question would be, isn't that answer also
necessarily determined? And on and on it goes! If what we call
"thoughts" are necessarily determined, then words and ideas really
have no meaning, we could not have thought or acted any differently
than we did anymore than Jupiter could take a break.....
"..Well, if matter in motion is all there is, then matter in motion is
all there is! In other words, there are no elements that allow us to
draw independent conclusions, or to give real meaning to words and
sentences. If this form of atheistic cosmology it true, then the
matter in motion that makes up you and me must also act in a
necessarily determined way, as all other matter in motion must. What
we call thoughts, are nothing more than the result of atoms and
molecules bouncing around in our heads as they must according to the
laws of physics...."
"...If this is true, then it would be impossible for me not to be a
Christian; that is the way the atoms are bouncing and no one can do
anything about it. It would be impossible for an Atheist not to be an
Atheist; that is the way the atoms are bouncing in his head. This
means there is no such thing as real "thoughts," there is merely the
necessary bouncing of atoms, deterministically producing what bouncing
atoms produce...."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,194,Huw-Edwards-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,BBC-Richard-Dawkins#1354
"....Dawkins as an atheist says he wants people to make up their own
minds. Well, if our minds consist of atoms bouncing around constrained
by the laws of chemistry and physics, we don't believe what we believe
because it is true. So Dawkins, according to his own beliefs, has to
admit that he believes what he believes not because they are true. His
atheism undercuts any attempts to utilize logic (which is immaterial
btw) and reasoning...."
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
>appeal to abstract authority.
Backspace continues to undermine Christian credibility by resort to
meaningless rhetoric,
>
>http://www.psychohistorian.org/atheism/ellisnoma.html"....Recent
>Templeton Foundation prize winner Prof George Ellis (Applied
>Mathematics, UCT) has elaborated on this in his lucid essay "Science
>and Religion: A personal view of their relation....."
>
and contempt for facts (a Templeton Prize winner is on the face of it
unlikely to be a philosophical materialist).
--
alias Ernest Major
wf3h
> Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
>>
> exist ? What is he really trying to say. For this we need to know what
> is the materialist assumptions and world views. They believe that
> matter created language, theists that language created matter. Neither
> of these world views can be proven or disproven.
no one knows what a 'materialist' is. there is no 'materialist'
church, no doctrine, no bible. no 'fundamentalist' pamphlet...nothing.
What is the intent
> then with "science" from the materialists? It is a proxy word for
> their materialist superstitions. 'Science' is not defined, nobody
> knows what the word is supposed to mean.
how about 'god'? what does 'god' mean? and the 'bible'? what is that?
there are 30,000 xtian denominations. you want a meaningless word? how
about
GOD
>
> Materialists use it as a rhetorical device when arguing from authority
> regularly invoking the non-existent person Mr.Science with statements
> such as "...science says so.." and science says nothing.
haven't seen the term 'science says so' other than coming from folks
like you....
> These debates in evolution should start from what is the person's
> personal religious beliefs. I
what is 'religion'? is there such a word? what is its context? what is
your intent by using it? you haven't defined it.
Rolf
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194082591.1...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
> appeal to abstract authority.
>
> http://www.psychohistorian.org/atheism/ellisnoma.html
> "....Recent Templeton Foundation prize winner Prof George Ellis
> (Applied Mathematics, UCT) has elaborated on this in his lucid essay
> "Science and Religion: A personal view of their relation....."
>
> How could Mr.Science and Mr.Religion have a relation if they don't
> exist ? What is he really trying to say. For this we need to know what
> is the materialist assumptions and world views. They believe that
> matter created language, theists that language created matter.
You keep making such stupid arguments. As long as you persist with that, you
cannot expect to get any answer. Your questions are not answerable. You
might as well ask about Bigfoot, Yeti's or Nessie.
Until you get your act together and can act in a coherent manner, you might
just as well pull a blanket over your head and leave it there.
Rolf
Ymir
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> word like "selection" is defined by its synonyms such as
> choice, decision and preference, but "science" what intent are we
> trying to communicate with this word?
No. It's defined by usage -- the same as any other word. And usage
changes over time.
> Materialists use it as a rhetorical device when arguing from authority
> regularly invoking the non-existent person Mr.Science with statements
> such as "...science says so.." and science says nothing. What they are
> really trying to say is that from their assumptions that their
> thoughts are created by atoms bouncing inside their head - matter
> creates language - that they as materialists decree by their authority
> as the secular hight priests of society that such and such is so.
> These debates in evolution should start from what is the person's
> personal religious beliefs.
No. When someone says 'science says that X' what they are saying is that
the consensus among scientists who work on the relevant topic is that X.
> I believe Language created matter and
> materialists the reverse. I think their position is preposterous they
> think mine is ridiculous.
> How could either be proven?
When you demonstrate a way of vocalising some matter into existence I
might start taking your position seriously. Until then, I suggest that
maybe an introductory course on linguistics or philosophy of language
might be in order to help rid you of some of your more ludicrous views
on the subject.
André
--
use rot thirteen to email
ntv...@tznvy.pbz
Inez
> Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
> appeal to abstract authority.
>
> http://www.psychohistorian.org/atheism/ellisnoma.html
> "....Recent Templeton Foundation prize winner Prof George Ellis
> (Applied Mathematics, UCT) has elaborated on this in his lucid essay
> "Science and Religion: A personal view of their relation....."
>
> How could Mr.Science and Mr.Religion have a relation if they don't
> exist ?
I really don't understand why you find this line of...well, not
argument certainly...whining maybe?...satisfying in the slightest. It
doesn't disprove or even argue against the theories you wish to
refute, it only denies that they are defined well enough to discuss.
Why don't you run along and do something useful with your life, and
leave this issue to people who understand it?
> What is he really trying to say. For this we need to know what
> is the materialist assumptions and world views.
Since this is not something you'll allow yourself to understand, I
can't imagine why you bother.
Cheezits
[babble deleted]
> I believe Language created matter...
Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority said so?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
backspace
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
Well I still don't know what you believe: Do you believe that matter
created language? Where did language come from.
And if I am stupid what Chomsky then for saying that NS can't explain
the origin of language - also stupid. Perhaps but then you must
motivate your view.
Woland
Actually, normal people don't let their metaphysical beliefs effect
things like their ability to observe simple phenomena in nature. What
I believe has absolutely no affect on things like differential
reproductivs success.
Cheezits
Looks like you've decided to turn off the bot and speak for yourself for
a change. :-D
> On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
>> [babble deleted]
>>
>> > I believe Language created matter...
>>
>> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority said
>> so?
>>
> Well I still don't know what you believe: Do you believe that matter
> created language? Where did language come from.
Language comes from *living things* communicating with each other. They
are made of *matter*. Do the math!
> And if I am stupid what Chomsky then for saying that NS can't explain
> the origin of language - also stupid.
That does not follow. I'm not aware of Chomsky saying that "Language
created matter". But if he did then it is still stupid, unless he
actually has some coherent reason for it. Which you apparently don't.
Woland
Also, you may want to try reading some chomsky again. He wasn't
arguing that language couldn't develop naturally, he was arguing that
language developed as a side effect of other evolutionary events such
as increase in brain size.
It's dishonest to take things out of context.
richardal...@googlemail.com
<meaningless text snipped>
what is your intent when you use the word "abstract"?
what is your intent when you use the word "and"?
what is your intent when you use the word "appeal"?
what is your intent when you use the word "are"?
what is your intent when you use the word "assumptions"?
what is your intent when you use the word "authority."?
what is your intent when you use the word "be"?
what is your intent when you use the word "believe"?
what is your intent when you use the word "but"?
what is your intent when you use the word "by"?
what is your intent when you use the word "can"?
what is your intent when you use the word "choice,"?
what is your intent when you use the word "communicate"?
what is your intent when you use the word "continued"?
what is your intent when you use the word "could"?
what is your intent when you use the word "created"?
what is your intent when you use the word "credibility"?
what is your intent when you use the word "decision"?
what is your intent when you use the word "defined"?
what is your intent when you use the word "differs"?
what is your intent when you use the word "disproven."?
what is your intent when you use the word "don't"?
what is your intent when you use the word "everybody"?
what is your intent when you use the word "exist"?
what is your intent when you use the word "for"?
what is your intent when you use the word "form"?
what is your intent when you use the word "from"?
what is your intent when you use the word "have"?
what is your intent when you use the word "he"?
what is your intent when you use the word "how"?
what is your intent when you use the word "if"?
what is your intent when you use the word "intent"?
what is your intent when you use the word "is"?
what is your intent when you use the word "it"?
what is your intent when you use the word "keep"?
what is your intent when you use the word "know"?
what is your intent when you use the word "knows"?
what is your intent when you use the word "language"?
what is your intent when you use the word "like"?
what is your intent when you use the word "materialist"?
what is your intent when you use the word "matter"?
what is your intent when you use the word "mean."?
what is your intent when you use the word "need"?
what is your intent when you use the word "Neither"?
what is your intent when you use the word "nobody"?
what is your intent when you use the word "not"?
what is your intent when you use the word "of"?
what is your intent when you use the word "or"?
what is your intent when you use the word "person"?
what is your intent when you use the word "preference,"?
what is your intent when you use the word "proven"?
what is your intent when you use the word "proxy"?
what is your intent when you use the word "really"?
what is your intent when you use the word "relation"?
what is your intent when you use the word "say."?
what is your intent when you use the word "science"?
what is your intent when you use the word "'Science'"?
what is your intent when you use the word "some"?
what is your intent when you use the word "such"?
what is your intent when you use the word "superstitions."?
what is your intent when you use the word "supposed"?
what is your intent when you use the word "synonyms"?
what is your intent when you use the word "that"?
what is your intent when you use the word "the"?
what is your intent when you use the word "their"?
what is your intent when you use the word "theists"?
what is your intent when you use the word "then"?
what is your intent when you use the word "these"?
what is your intent when you use the word "they"?
what is your intent when you use the word "this"?
what is your intent when you use the word "to"?
what is your intent when you use the word "trying"?
what is your intent when you use the word "undermining"?
what is your intent when you use the word "uses"?
what is your intent when you use the word "views"?
what is your intent when you use the word "we"?
what is your intent when you use the word "what"?
what is your intent when you use the word "What"?
what is your intent when you use the word "what"?
what is your intent when you use the word "what"?
what is your intent when you use the word "with"?
what is your intent when you use the word "with"?
what is your intent when you use the word "word"?
what is your intent when you use the word "world"?
Until you can communicate this intent to us without using any words
whose intent you have not established, your posts are not even wrong,
but meaningless.
RF
Delaware Dave
<snip rambling intro>
>What is the intent
> then with "science" from the materialists? It is a proxy word for
> their materialist superstitions. 'Science' is not defined, nobody
> knows what the word is supposed to mean. Everybody uses it to
> communicate some form of intent and this intent differs from person to
> person. A word like "selection" is defined by its synonyms such as
> choice, decision and preference, but "science" what intent are we
> trying to communicate with this word?
<snip rambling conclusion>
By your pedantic approach to language, you choose to make
communication impossible. Don't waste our time.
Cheers,
Delaware Dave
Mujin
news:1194099649.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> Well I still don't know what you believe: Do you believe that matter
> created language? Where did language come from.
> And if I am stupid what Chomsky then for saying that NS can't explain
> the origin of language - also stupid. Perhaps but then you must
> motivate your view.
Chomsky has in the past expressed some doubt that biological NS could
adequately explain the development of language in humans, but there are two
facts to consider:
1. When he expresses this doubt, he is referring to the hypothesized
existence of a "language organ" in the brain which is responsible for
language, unique to humans, and must therefore be accounted for in terms of
origin from a precursor organ. Chomsky's doubt was that any such organ
could exist - instead he believed that the "language organ" was an
abstraction that existed only in the higher-order activity of human mind.
Thus, biological NS could not be invoked to explain it.
2. Since his initial expression of doubt, Chomsky has changed his position
several times. In light of recent discoveries in human neurobiology and
neurolinguistics, Chomsky is no longer expressing doubt - in fact he is
actively exploring the possible evolutionay history of language. See this
paper from 2002:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5598/1569
NEUROSCIENCE:
The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?
Marc D. Hauser,1* Noam Chomsky,2 W. Tecumseh Fitch1
We argue that an understanding of the faculty of language requires
substantial interdisciplinary cooperation. We suggest how current
developments in linguistics can be profitably wedded to work in
evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience. We submit
that a distinction should be made between the faculty of language in the
broad sense (FLB) and in the narrow sense (FLN). FLB includes a sensory-
motor system, a conceptual-intentional system, and the computational
mechanisms for recursion, providing the capacity to generate an infinite
range of expressions from a finite set of elements. We hypothesize that FLN
only includes recursion and is the only uniquely human component of the
faculty of language. We further argue that FLN may have evolved for reasons
other than language, hence comparative studies might look for evidence of
such computations outside of the domain of communication (for example,
number, navigation, and social relations)."
--
Bo no mujin sei gan dan
backspace
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Looks like you've decided to turn off the bot and speak for yourself for
> a change. :-D
>
> > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> >> [babble deleted]
>
> >> > I believe Language created matter...
>
> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority said
> >> so?
>
> > Well I still don't know what you believe: Do you believe that matter
> > created language? Where did language come from.
>
> Language comes from *living things* communicating with each other. They
> are made of *matter*. Do the math!
Which begs the question: Where do living things come from? What is
Life ....
backspace
What is an "evolutionary event"? An increase in brain size is just
that an increase - what has this got to do with the word "evolution"?
Would you clarify for me what happens when something "develops
naturally" - what exactly is this?
Cheezits
> On Nov 3, 4:31 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
>> >> [babble deleted]
>>
>> >> > I believe Language created matter...
>>
>> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
>> >> said so?
I see this question still goes unanswered.
>> > Well I still don't know what you believe: Do you believe that
>> > matter created language? Where did language come from.
>>
>> Language comes from *living things* communicating with each other.
Asked and answered. And ignored by the OP.
> Which begs the question: Where do living things come from?
No, it desn't beg the question. That is a whole other subject. Living
things come from matter. You claim that matter comes comes from
language. And still can't explain why you believe such a stupid thing.
backspace
> backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> 2. Since his initial expression of doubt, Chomsky has changed his position
> several times. In light of recent discoveries in human neurobiology and
> neurolinguistics, Chomsky is no longer expressing doubt - in fact he is
> actively exploring the possible evolutionay history of language. See this
> paper from 2002:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5598/1569
> NEUROSCIENCE:
You are quoting from a peer reviewed journal dated 2002. Below I am
quoting from a blog post date April 2007.
For Chomsky to get past the secular priests guarding their citadel of
materialism he can't exactly hand in a paper with the title: Natural
selection is linguistic gargoyle. If we read between the lines from
Fodor, Prof. Skell to Chomsky they are basically saying that NS is a
semantic impossibility. Remember what happened to Popper, the
materialist gestapo went after an old man until he "repented". Like
all people Chomsky is human, he is probably afraid of the materialist
tigers on the prowl ready to disembowel anybody who threatens their
materialist superstitions. YEC like me and materialists have to play
by the same rules of language. Language comes first and then
everything else wether YEC, ID or materialism.
Language my dear materialist friends are not subject unto your
materialism it is the other way round.
http://masonmade.com/blog/my_conversation_with_noam_chomsky.html
"..He's become sort of infamous for supposedly saying that language
does not seem to be a product of natural selection, or that there's no
evidence that human language is a product of natural selection...."
"..Chomsky also pointed out how there's basically no evidence for
natural selection of human language, because we don't have recordings
from back then, or fossils showing soft tissue, so we can't really say
much about it. He said that most scientists observe organisms' traits
and seeing how they're well fitted to their environments and
lifestyles and then make the leap to assuming that natural selection
is responsible for this...."
"...I asked him whether I understood correctly, that his criticisms of
people inferring that language is a product of natural selection also
apply to pretty much any trait of any organism. He said that's right.
Then I asked him whether he thought that most researchers, when they
talk about natural selection having effects, are being sloppy. He
said, "extremely sloppy..."
Woland
> On Nov 3, 4:44 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 9:20 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> > > > [babble deleted]
>
> > > > > I believe Language created matter...
>
> > > > Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority said so?
>
> > > > Sue
> > > > --
> > > > "It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
> > > > make us what we are." - Red Green
>
> > > Well I still don't know what you believe: Do you believe that matter
> > > created language? Where did language come from.
> > > And if I am stupid what Chomsky then for saying that NS can't explain
> > > the origin of language - also stupid. Perhaps but then you must
> > > motivate your view.
>
> > Also, you may want to try reading some chomsky again. He wasn't
> > arguing that language couldn't develop naturally, he was arguing that
> > language developed as a side effect of other evolutionary events such
> > as increase in brain size.
>
> What is an "evolutionary event"?
An "evolutionary event" may be misleading to some extent but, once
again, it's linguistic short-hand. In this context we are talking
about some traits having a greater frequency in a population because
that trait gives individuals in that population an advantage. It's
about the distribution of a trait, such as brain size increase. Really
it's lumping a continuum of events and calling it an "evolutionary
event."
> An increase in brain size is justthat an increase - what has this got to do with >the word "evolution"?
Well, the archaeological record shows a gradual increase in brain
size. The evolutionary explaination for this is that larger brain size
gave populations a benefit that resulted in that trait being spread
throughout the population. Over many generations this resulted in the
brain size that we have today. This is text-book evolution, the change
in frequency of alleles within a population over time.
> Would you clarify for me what happens when something "develops
> naturally" - what exactly is this?
Naturally as opposed to supernaturally or artificially. You, for
example, don't believe that language developed naturally, you believe
something else that has no relevance to science (not the person, the
subject), which is fine. We use the word 'natural' to distinguish
between things created by man and things that exist in nature.
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough:
When we say "develops naturally" we mean without interference.
Interference could come from man or any hypothetical god or goddess.
backspace
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:31 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> >> >> [babble deleted]
>
> >> >> > I believe Language created matter...
>
> >> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
> >> >> said so?
>
> I see this question still goes unanswered.
My apologies: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God who said
that He is the Truth, Way and Life! .... I love you Lord Jesus!
Desertphile
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
> appeal to abstract authority.
You are a nut. Observing reality is not an "appeal to authority."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Free Lunch
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1194112349.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>:
A self-sustaining biochemical reaction.
Steven J.
>
-- [snip]
>
> How could Mr.Science and Mr.Religion have a relation if they don't
> exist ? What is he really trying to say. For this we need to know what
> is the materialist assumptions and world views. They believe that
> matter created language, theists that language created matter. Neither
> of these world views can be proven or disproven. What is the intent
> then with "science" from the materialists? It is a proxy word for
> their materialist superstitions. 'Science' is not defined, nobody
> knows what the word is supposed to mean. Everybody uses it to
> communicate some form of intent and this intent differs from person to
> person. A word like "selection" is defined by its synonyms such as
> choice, decision and preference, but "science" what intent are we
> trying to communicate with this word?
>
Science" and "Mr. Religion" don't exist, how can you go around
speaking as though "Mr. Materialist Superstitions," "Mr. Worldview,"
or even "Mr. Language" exist? How can you possibly exempt yourself
from your own condemnations for "appeal to abstract authority?"
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Cheezits
> On Nov 3, 8:03 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
>> >> >> said so?
>>
>> I see this question still goes unanswered.
>
> My apologies: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God who said
> that He is the Truth, Way and Life! .... I love you Lord Jesus!
Okaaaay... you believe a stupid thing because you are stupid. Makes
sense.
Free Lunch
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1194114874.4...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
You have no evidence that Jesus said that or that He is the Son of the
Living God or that any gods exist.
Woland
I don't understand. Is Jesus his own son or what?
wf3h
> For Chomsky to get past the secular priests guarding their citadel of
> materialism he can't exactly hand in a paper with the title: Natural
> selection is linguistic gargoyle. If we read between the lines from
> Fodor, Prof. Skell to Chomsky they are basically saying that NS is a
> semantic impossibility. Remember what happened to Popper, the
> materialist gestapo went after an old man until he "repented". Like
> all people Chomsky is human, he is probably afraid of the materialist
> tigers on the prowl
backspace doesn't know too much about chomsky, it seems. for chomsky's
views on materialism pale in comparsion with his political ones; his
view is that the US is the most evil regime in history, worse than
nazi germany or stalinist russia, and deserves to be destroyed.
if backspace thinks chomsky curtails his comments because he feels
threatened, he doesn't know chomsky at all.
Mujin
news:1194114472.7...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> Mujin wrote:
>> backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> 2. Since his initial expression of doubt, Chomsky has changed his
>> position several times. In light of recent discoveries in human
>> neurobiology and neurolinguistics, Chomsky is no longer expressing
>> doubt - in fact he is actively exploring the possible evolutionay
>> history of language. See this paper from 2002:
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5598/1569
>> NEUROSCIENCE:
>
> You are quoting from a peer reviewed journal dated 2002. Below I am
> quoting from a blog post date April 2007.
And a blog post by someone who happened to talk to Chomsky in the bathroom
is *ever* so much more reliable than the words of Chomsky himself, of
course.
> For Chomsky to get past the secular priests guarding their citadel of
> materialism he can't exactly hand in a paper with the title: Natural
> selection is linguistic gargoyle.
Not only that, as Chomsky himself says, and as is reflected IN THE BLOG YOU
CITE, Chomsky has nothing at all against natural selection. He merely
questions to what degree biological natural selection can be demonstrated
to be responsible for modern human language. From Mason Inman's blog:
"It's not that natural selection couldn't have played a role; everyone
except Christian fundamentalists accepts that natural selection is at work
on organisms, he said. It's just that there are other forces, such as
physical and chemical law, at work, and also we have limited knowledge of
what happened in the past, so there's little we can say about how natural
selection may have contributed to a trait, he argues."
Notice: Chomsky isn't denying natural selection, he's merely noting that NS
is not the only force at play in the development of language, that other
forces played their parts as well, and that due to the lack of physical
evidence for language in the deep human past (no recordings) we have
difficulty assessing the degree to which NS played a part.
> If we read between the lines from
> Fodor, Prof. Skell to Chomsky they are basically saying that NS is a
> semantic impossibility.
You will have to demonstrate this, since I read no such thing "between the
lines" of Chomsky or anyone else for that matter.
> Remember what happened to Popper, the
> materialist gestapo went after an old man until he "repented". Like
> all people Chomsky is human, he is probably afraid of the materialist
> tigers on the prowl ready to disembowel anybody who threatens their
> materialist superstitions.
This is paranoid claptrap. The "materialist gestapo" you so breathlessly
invoke was nothing more than practicing scientists pointing out to Popper
that in the real world of scientific research his strict empirical
falsification does not work in all cases. The reality is that there isn't
really any such thing as "The Scientific Method" as reified in Popper's
(and other) conceptions of science, no matter what your junior high school
textbooks told you. In reality scientists use a variety of approaches
which rely on three very simple dicta:
1. Nullius in Verba (no authority is sacrosanct)
2. Experimentalism (test claims by observation and experiment)
3. Triangulation (compare the results of different methods and researchers)
> YEC like me and materialists have to play
> by the same rules of language. Language comes first and then
> everything else wether YEC, ID or materialism.
You deny, then, that there is a material reality about which we can gain
objective knowledge? This is intellectual nihilism of an extreme degree.
> Language my dear materialist friends are not subject unto your
> materialism it is the other way round.
>
> http://masonmade.com/blog/my_conversation_with_noam_chomsky.html
[snip quote mines]
You're very good at misrepresenting Chomsky through the words of others.
But can you identify anything *he* says that supports your characterization
of him as saying that language could not have evolved? I can certainly
produce Chomsky's own words to the contrary:
www.cse.iitk.ac.in/~hk/cs789/papers/Belletti-Rizzi-interview-Chomsky02.pdf
"There is essentially nothing to say, language is off the chart. That is
the basic conclusion that follows from [Hauser's] comprehensive review of
comparative communication. That doesn't mean that language is not the
result of biological evolution, of course we all assume it is. But what
kind of result of biological evolution? Well, here you have to look at the
little bit we know..."
"There is also a point that Jerry Fodor has recently stressed [25]:
language is different from most other biological systems, including some
cognitive systems, in that the physical, external constraints that it has
to meet are extremely weak. So, there's some innate system of object
recognition: infants can identify object constancies; they know things
don't go through barriers, etc. But that system, whatever it is, has to be
attuned to the outside world; if you had a system that had objects going
through barriers and so on, you couldn't get along in the world. So that
system is sort of controlled by the outside world. Then it makes sense to
speculate that it was selected…this is a speculation, but plausible, like
echolocation. On the other hand, language doesn't have to meet that
condition, or it has to meet it in an extremely weak way"
Inez
This isn't really an answer to that question unless you're saying
Jesus is Language, which I don't suppose I would put past you.
Vend
Nobody really understands that.
Vend
I think it is quite standard Christian theology to identify the "Son"
with the "Logos".
Also, according to some interpetations of the Genesis creation myth,
God created things by "speaking them into existence".
Craig T
> How could Mr.Science and Mr.Religion have a relation if they don't
> exist ?
Mr. Science does exist.
http://themrscienceshow.com/
He also has a brother with a Masters Degree... in Science!
http://www.drscience.com/
Here is Mr. Religion's site
http://www.askmrreligion.com/
Mr. Religion charges to answer your questions, but does accept Paypal.
If you pay Mr. Religion, he might tell you about his relationship with
Mr. Science.
Kermit
> On 3 Nov, 22:09, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 11:34 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 8:03 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 3, 4:31 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> > > > >> >> [babble deleted]
>
> > > > >> >> > I believe Language created matter...
>
> > > > >> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
> > > > >> >> said so?
>
> > > > I see this question still goes unanswered.
>
> > > My apologies: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God who said
> > > that He is the Truth, Way and Life! .... I love you Lord Jesus!
>
> > This isn't really an answer to that question unless you're saying
> > Jesus is Language, which I don't suppose I would put past you.
>
> I think it is quite standard Christian theology to identify the "Son"
> with the "Logos".
You seem to be confused. We are discussing Backspace, not standard
Christian doctrines. I understand that there are some thousands of
Christian sects, but Backspace is unique among all of them, as far as
I can tell.
1. He thinks that English is the original language.
2. He believes that we are not "allowed" to change the meanings of
some words, the short list of which he is the sole keeper.
3. He believes that those who speak in tongues are deluded, except for
him, because his glossolalia sounds out a "real" language. He knows
this because someone who has heard another language says that his
babble sounds something like that other language. What this is
supposed to establish escapes me.
4. He believes that using words in ways which he does not understand
means that nobody can understand them.
> Also, according to some interpetations of the Genesis creation myth,
> God created things by "speaking them into existence".
Yes. Words have great magic in some old systems of magic. Many
cultures still keep their "true" names secret, so their enemies will
not gain control over them.
Kermit
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
>Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
>appeal to abstract authority.
...whereas religious individuals *never* appeal to any
authority, especially one whose existence has never been
demonstrated.
Mote. Beam. Eye.
And it is a mote. And it is a beam. And it is your eye.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
catshark
John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
It also has to be remembered that much of theology can best be understood
as _non sequiturs_.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
To what ridiculous theories will men of science be
led by attempting to reconcile science to scripture!
- Alfred Russel Wallace -
Kermit
> Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
> appeal to abstract authority.
I have never before heard anyone call reality "abstract authority".
Your brain really is addled, you know. Which is a metaphor, but still
true.
>
> http://www.psychohistorian.org/atheism/ellisnoma.html
> "....Recent Templeton Foundation prize winner Prof George Ellis
> (Applied Mathematics, UCT) has elaborated on this in his lucid essay
> "Science and Religion: A personal view of their relation....."
Why do you reference Prof. Ellis, and then not quote him? You complain
about "Abstract authority", whatever that is, but then dishonestly
claim that this man represents your following misrepresentations. This
is intellectual cowardice, and dishonest.
>
> How could Mr.Science and Mr.Religion have a relation if they don't
> exist ?
What childish nonsense is this?
> What is he really trying to say. For this we need to know what
> is the materialist assumptions and world views. They believe that
> matter created language,
Yes, living things, in particular humans, are made of matter.
> theists that language created matter.
Most theists would say that one or more gods made the universe.
Whether those gods used language or not, I don't believe any of them
claim that language was anything but a tool of power, and many don't
say that much. You understand comparative religion as poorly as you do
science.
> Neither
> of these world views can be proven or disproven.
Eh? It's pretty clear that language comes from the human brain. There
is as yet no verifiable evidence that anything besides the material
exist, except in the abstract. You can claim that this is not yet
proof, I suppose. There is not yet proof that there is no Santa Claus,
and am not sure what would constitute it.
> What is the intent
> then with "science" from the materialists?
It is dishonest of you, or pathological (I am not sure which applies)
to fail to acknowledge that scientist is not synonymous with, or a
subset of, philosophical materialists.
> It is a proxy word for
> their materialist superstitions.
An oxymoron. But I expect linguistic confusion from you, and little
else.
> 'Science' is not defined, nobody
> knows what the word is supposed to mean.
Actually, nearly everybody who speaks English knows what it means.
> Everybody uses it to
> communicate some form of intent
Very few people use "science" to communicate an intent. For a few
posts you actually used the word "meaning" correctly, but you have
reverted. I suppose meaningful discourse was too much of a strain for
your brain.
> and this intent differs from person to
> person.
If you mean "mean" instead of "intent", no. Peers (literate or not)
general mean about the same thing, and have no trouble communicating.
If you actually mean "intent", the sentence is nearly gibberish, and
does not refer to reality.
> A word like "selection" is defined by its synonyms such as
> choice, decision and preference, but "science" what intent are we
> trying to communicate with this word?
A rational study of reality, and how the world works. This is what
confuses you about it.
>
> Materialists use it as a rhetorical device when arguing from authority
> regularly invoking the non-existent person Mr.Science with statements
> such as "...science says so.." and science says nothing.
Well, by materialist, you mean science-literate people.
By rhetorical device, you mean linguistic shorthand.
When saying arguing by authority, you really mean offering their
observations of reality.
By invoking, you mean using as the subject of the sentence.
By non-existent person, you mean a parenthetical aside that this
interpretation is, BTW, just a feverish vision of your addled brain.
By Mr. Science, you mean the people who do science.
By science says so, you really do mean science says so.
By science says nothing, you mean that you don't understand.
So yes, you are correct.
> What they are
> really trying to say is that from their assumptions that their
> thoughts are created by atoms bouncing inside their head
You have an extraordinarily concrete image of the world. Even your
understanding of atoms are more material than real atoms actually are.
You continually conjure up an image of little billiard balls, which is
OK I suppose for third graders, but inappropriate if you want to
understand what's going on. Certainly investigating the origns of
language requires looking at society and human brains at a higher
level of organization than chemistry or nuclear physics. Which, it
goes without saying, you show no sign of grasping.
> - matter
> creates language - that they as materialists decree by their authority
> as the secular hight priests of society that such and such is so.
Actually, they explain how the universe itself works. The origin of
language is still not clear. You understand it even less, but until
you admit that, you have no hope of learning more. Hell, you still
can't read for comprehension.
> These debates in evolution should start from what is the person's
> personal religious beliefs. I believe Language created matter and
> materialists the reverse. I think their position is preposterous they
> think mine is ridiculous.
> How could either be proven? It can't of course all we can do is
> motivate for our position as below:
Well, methodological materialists can't continue to learn facts, until
the picture becomes clear. Empirical nihilists can continue to get
drunk and assert that their personal vision is divine. I suppose you
could try trial by combat - fisticuffs in the alley behind the bar.
>
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003074237AAG26mw
> "...Are what we call thoughts and ideas necessarily determined by the
> atoms bouncing around in our heads the way atoms bounce around in
> solar systems?
What a peculiarly concrete and simplistic view of what goes on.
> If our minds consist of nothing more than the same
> matter that makes up the rest of the universe, one may be tempted to
> answer, yes.
I might point out that you have no evidence to the contrary. We know
that our minds are a process of the brain, as well as we know
anything.
> But, then the question would be, isn't that answer also
> necessarily determined? And on and on it goes! If what we call
> "thoughts" are necessarily determined, then words and ideas really
> have no meaning,
No, this doesn't follow. Why would the ultimate source of the mind
being material imply that ideas have no meaning? I could as well
assert that "if the mind derives from spirit, then ideas would have no
meaning". Why on Earth would you think so?
> we could not have thought or acted any differently
> than we did anymore than Jupiter could take a break.....
Correct. Do you think that the universe - or even your own brain - is
as simple as you think? Our brains are complex and chaotic systems.
Free will is another issue altogether than your linguistic confusion,
you know.
Science != philosophical materialism
Science != atheism
Science != determinism
Until you learn what words *mean, you will never be able to clarify
your thinking, or make intelligible statements.
>
> "..Well, if matter in motion is all there is, then matter in motion is
> all there is!
Okaay...
>In other words, there are no elements that allow us to
> draw independent conclusions,
No this is not "in other words".
> or to give real meaning to words and
> sentences.
Nor this. Why would you think so?
> If this form of atheistic cosmology
What is atheist cosmology supposed to be, and what does it have to do
with science?
> it true, then the
> matter in motion that makes up you and me must also act in a
> necessarily determined way,
I happen to think so, yes.
> as all other matter in motion must. What
> we call thoughts, are nothing more than the result of atoms and
> molecules bouncing around in our heads as they must according to the
> laws of physics...."
Yes...
How do you break the laws of physics when you think )or whatever you
call it)?
Do you fly? Does your brain not use glucose for fuel? Or what?
>
> "...If this is true, then it would be impossible for me not to be a
> Christian;
Yeah. If you were born in Calcutta, you'd be a very confused Hindu.
> that is the way the atoms are bouncing and no one can do
> anything about it.
About our thoughts? We can try reasoning. True, that doesn't seem to
work, but I haven't ruled out antipsychotics yet. We interact with the
world around us all the time! How can you possibly think nobody can do
anything about your thoughts?
Or by "it" do you mean that we can't create an alternate universe
which is deterministic? Well, duh.
> It would be impossible for an Atheist not to be an
> Atheist;
Ha. Silly boy. I'm an atheist. All you have to do to convince me is
offer persuasive and verifiable evidence that there are gods. Have
any?
> that is the way the atoms are bouncing in his head.
In response to all that is happening and has happening to him/her,
yes. You really don't understand this, do you?
> This
> means there is no such thing as real "thoughts,"
No, it means there are no spirits. Why would it mean there are no
thoughts?
> there is merely the
> necessary bouncing of atoms, deterministically producing what bouncing
> atoms produce...."
Yes. This does not explain why you have no native language.
>
> http://richarddawkins.net/article,194,Huw-Edwards-Interviews-Richard-...
> "....Dawkins as an atheist says he wants people to make up their own
> minds. Well, if our minds consist of atoms bouncing around constrained
> by the laws of chemistry and physics, we don't believe what we believe
> because it is true.
I would consider all of my beliefs to be true. Why could I believe
them if I thought otherwise? You don't seem to be able to wrap your
mind around the idea that you might be mistaken in anything; this is
common in concrete thinking fundamentalists. If materialism were true,
then the materialists would obviously be correct in this particular at
least, yes?
> So Dawkins, according to his own beliefs, has to
> admit that he believes what he believes not because they are true.
No he doesn't. For instance, you obviously do not admit that you are
confused because you are stupid, and that is obviously true.
> His
> atheism undercuts any attempts to utilize logic
That doesn't follow.
>(which is immaterial btw) and reasoning...."
Yes. Abstract thought is what functioning human brains sometimes do.
Why is that a problem for you? Philosophical materialists (which not
all scientists are, remember?) say that abstractions such as music,
math, ideas, etc, are subsets of brain behavior. You, lacking all
evidence to the contrary, deny this.
HTH.
Kermit
backspace
> Free will is another issue altogether than your linguistic confusion,
> you know.
> Science != philosophical materialism
> Science != atheism
> Science != determinism
Exactly "Science" is whatever you want to make it mean in order to
communicate your intent. You have stated what is not your
intent, what is then your intent with "science" ? It would for
example help that in giving me a definition of "science" you would
tell me who says so, because this person like all of us has some sort
of agenda, world view and metaphysical idea of what the '"Truth" is.
For example we are told that "Science deals with material things" -
says who? Because the sentence as it is , is again just appeal to
abstract authority, there is no Mr.Science that "deals" with anything.
And thus I need to know who says so, in order to point out the fallacy
to him and ask him for his intent. It is the intent or pragmatics that
I am after not the semantics.
topmind
backspace wrote:
> 'Science' is not defined, nobody knows what the
> word is supposed to mean. Everybody uses it to
> communicate some form of intent and this intent differs
> from person to person.
I full-heartedly agree. About a year ago after suggesting that the
difference between SETI and looking for intelligence in DNA patterns
was not materially different, the issue of the definition of "science"
came up as a key sticking point.
Nobody could propose an applicable algorithm or precise "clinical
grade" definition. They basically said more or less, "if you were
smart like me, you would just recognize real science when you saw it".
I have to dismiss that as arrogance, let alone highly subjective.
The worse part is that they were not bothered by this vaguery. They
seemed perfectly content to leave it subjective. For a group that
prides themselves for their alleged tough intellectualism, it was
disappointing.
One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
philosophy and terminology of science. Just as wars have pushed
technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
the tools of science also.
-T-
backspace
> You're very good at misrepresenting Chomsky through the words of others.
> But can you identify anything *he* says that supports your characterization
> of him as saying that language could not have evolved? I can certainly
> produce Chomsky's own words to the contrary:
http://masonmade.com/blog/my_conversation_with_noam_chomsky.html
"....When asked about what role natural selection may have played in
the development or evolution of language, he said that the more we
learn about evolution, the more we find that the mutations and random
variations that are viable and helpful are highly constrained by
physical and chemical law. So evolution and natural selection are not
synonymous. Natural selection is one process that helps direct
evolution-which is simply the change over time of a group of organisms-
but physical and chemical laws also channel evolution..."
Chomsky says that "...Evolution and natural selection are non
synonymous..." and this is a point I have brought up previously which
was ignored.
In any case notice that nobody is asking what is Chomsk's intent with
natural selection. Is he talking about Darwin's version of natural
selection namely "Survival of the Strongest" which Darwin said was a
better expression?
Mujin are you trying to say every time you use "natural selection" -
"Survival of the Strongest" ? If not then which individual with what
intent are you quoting when using NS. If it is your own phrase then
you must define for me NS so I can understand your intent because
presently I am interpreting it as being Darwin's term "Survival of the
Strongest". Natural Selection as a stand alone word couplet is just a
meaningless as "You have a green light"
I need to know who said "You have a green light" in order to
understand the intent the person had. Intent sir, intent your
semantics is just an attempt at communicating your intent and I simply
don't know what your intent is.
Oh, my word "Strongest" Darwin said "Fittest" , sure but is "Fittest"
not a synonym for "Strongest"? Aaaah, intent , yes intent that is the
question thing about that before some of you great defenders of Uncle
Darwin charge headlong into this thread your rhetorical swords drawn
full of sound and fury signifying nothing, the ramblings of an idiot.
Garamond Lethe
> On Nov 4, 1:30 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Free will is another issue altogether than your linguistic confusion,
>> you know.
>> Science != philosophical materialism
>> Science != atheism
>> Science != determinism
>
> Exactly "Science" is whatever you want to make it mean in order to
> communicate your intent.
There's a really profound result along these lines in a recent AIR. My
institution has a subscription through ingentaconnect, but I think it's
available through the author's website as well. Ah, yes, it is.
http://tinyurl.com/2whpvd
AIR, Volume 12, Number 5, September-October 2006 , pp. 16-21(6)
The only other work I know of in the subfield is frankly derivative and,
to the best of my knowledge, remains unpublished. I only mention it
because the "intentional" work is unusually clear.
[WARNING: like most semiotic papers, this is not necessarily safe for
viewing at work. Do you want your boss seeing you reading semiotics? I
didn't think so. Let's be careful out there.]
http://www.scs.cs.nyu.edu/~dm/remove.pdf
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:57:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 1:30 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Free will is another issue altogether than your linguistic confusion,
> >> you know.
> >> Science != philosophical materialism
> >> Science != atheism
> >> Science != determinism
> >
> > Exactly "Science" is whatever you want to make it mean in order to
> > communicate your intent.
>
> There's a really profound result along these lines in a recent AIR. My
> institution has a subscription through ingentaconnect, but I think it's
> available through the author's website as well. Ah, yes, it is.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2whpvd
> AIR, Volume 12, Number 5, September-October 2006 , pp. 16-21(6)
>
> The only other work I know of in the subfield is frankly derivative and,
> to the best of my knowledge, remains unpublished. I only mention it
> because the "intentional" work is unusually clear.
>
> [WARNING: like most semiotic papers, this is not necessarily safe for
> viewing at work. Do you want your boss seeing you reading semiotics? I
> didn't think so. Let's be careful out there.]
>
> http://www.scs.cs.nyu.edu/~dm/remove.pdf
For a semiotics paper, I think it is spot on the money.
>
>
>
>
> > You have stated what is not your intent, what
> > is then your intent with "science" ? It would for example help that in
> > giving me a definition of "science" you would tell me who says so,
> > because this person like all of us has some sort of agenda, world view
> > and metaphysical idea of what the '"Truth" is. For example we are told
> > that "Science deals with material things" - says who? Because the
> > sentence as it is , is again just appeal to abstract authority, there is
> > no Mr.Science that "deals" with anything. And thus I need to know who
> > says so, in order to point out the fallacy to him and ask him for his
> > intent. It is the intent or pragmatics that I am after not the
> > semantics.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Timberwoof
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:57:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 4, 1:30 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Free will is another issue altogether than your linguistic confusion,
> > >> you know.
> > >> Science != philosophical materialism
> > >> Science != atheism
> > >> Science != determinism
> > >
> > > Exactly "Science" is whatever you want to make it mean in order to
> > > communicate your intent.
> >
> > There's a really profound result along these lines in a recent AIR. My
> > institution has a subscription through ingentaconnect, but I think it's
> > available through the author's website as well. Ah, yes, it is.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2whpvd
> > AIR, Volume 12, Number 5, September-October 2006 , pp. 16-21(6)
> >
> > The only other work I know of in the subfield is frankly derivative and,
> > to the best of my knowledge, remains unpublished. I only mention it
> > because the "intentional" work is unusually clear.
> >
> > [WARNING: like most semiotic papers, this is not necessarily safe for
> > viewing at work. Do you want your boss seeing you reading semiotics? I
> > didn't think so. Let's be careful out there.]
> >
> > http://www.scs.cs.nyu.edu/~dm/remove.pdf
>
> For a semiotics paper, I think it is spot on the money.
Did you ever read the one by the physicist who wrote a software app to
write a lit-crit paper for him, and submitted it to a lit-crit journal?
No one understood it, for it said absolutely nothing, but it was
universally hailed as an insightful work ... until he announced how he
did it and presented the source code. Half the lit-crit crowd said,
"yeah, we thought so all along" and the other half denied his
retraction.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
John Wilkins
If you mean the Sokal hoax, I actually was in contact with him after he
did it. He got a *lot* of flak. But he wrote it the old-fashioned way,
not with a bot.
J. J. Lodder
> Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> > Did you ever read the one by the physicist who wrote a software app to
> > write a lit-crit paper for him, and submitted it to a lit-crit journal?
> > No one understood it, for it said absolutely nothing, but it was
> > universally hailed as an insightful work ... until he announced how he
> > did it and presented the source code. Half the lit-crit crowd said,
> > "yeah, we thought so all along" and the other half denied his
> > retraction.
>
> If you mean the Sokal hoax, I actually was in contact with him after he
> did it. He got a *lot* of flak.
But he was also praised into heaven for it, by others.
> But he wrote it the old-fashioned way, not with a bot.
Of course. Writing a bot for it would be -much- more work
than just writing the piece.
(and a complete waste of time, and much less fun)
Perhaps the previous poster was thinking of the Kant-generator?
We might add that Alan Sokal used his time in a much better way
to expand the joke into a serious book,
working together with Jean Bricmont.
Even the French had to take notice,
Jan
Steven J.
> On Nov 3, 9:47 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>
> > You're very good at misrepresenting Chomsky through the words of others.
> > But can you identify anything *he* says that supports your characterization
> > of him as saying that language could not have evolved? I can certainly
> > produce Chomsky's own words to the contrary:
>
> http://masonmade.com/blog/my_conversation_with_noam_chomsky.html
> "....When asked about what role natural selection may have played in
> the development or evolution of language, he said that the more we
> learn about evolution, the more we find that the mutations and random
> variations that are viable and helpful are highly constrained by
> physical and chemical law. So evolution and natural selection are not
> synonymous. Natural selection is one process that helps direct
> evolution-which is simply the change over time of a group of organisms-
> but physical and chemical laws also channel evolution..."
>
> Chomsky says that "...Evolution and natural selection are non
> synonymous..." and this is a point I have brought up previously which
> was ignored.
>
evolution and natural selection are different phenomena. Darwin, for
example, concluded that evolution happened some months before he hit
upon the idea of natural selection; Lamarck argued for evolution
without ever suggesting or mentioning natural selection (under that or
any other name).
Or were you confused by the term "non-synonymous?" It means, "these
two terms don't mean the same thing." Please note that Chomsky is NOT
denying that language could have evolved; he is pointing out that even
if it did evolve, natural selection may have played a minor role.
>
> In any case notice that nobody is asking what is Chomsk's intent with
> natural selection. Is he talking about Darwin's version of natural
> selection namely "Survival of the Strongest" which Darwin said was a
> better expression?
>
Everybody but you knows what he means by the term. And the term
which Darwin suggested (at Spencer's suggestion) was synonymous with
natural selection was "survival of the FITTEST." Now, I suppose you
could call it "survival of the strongest," since "strongest" has
various meanings (e.g. political commentators are already discussing
which candidate would be the "strongest" candidate for their
respective parties in the 2008 presidential election; they aren't
asking which one can bench-press the most). But it is important to
note that physical strength is only one aspect of "fitness," and not
always the one that most helps an organism in a given environment.
What other versions of natural selection might, in your opinion,
Chomsky have in mind?
>
> Mujin are you trying to say every time you use "natural selection" -
> "Survival of the Strongest" ? If not then which individual with what
> intent are you quoting when using NS. If it is your own phrase then
> you must define for me NS so I can understand your intent because
> presently I am interpreting it as being Darwin's term "Survival of the
> Strongest". Natural Selection as a stand alone word couplet is just a
> meaningless as "You have a green light"
>
If you took your own words seriously, you would be unable to
understand any sentence in English (although there are, no doubt,
posters who will argue that this is the case anyway). How am I
supposed to explain my "intent" to you, when you don't know my
"intent" with the very words I am trying to use to explain myself?
>
> I need to know who said "You have a green light" in order to
> understand the intent the person had. Intent sir, intent your
> semantics is just an attempt at communicating your intent and I simply
> don't know what your intent is.
>
Normally, you need to know context, not intent; if you're sitting at a
traffic light, the words "you have a green light" presumably means
that the traffic light has changed color and that you now ought to
take your foot off the brake and proceed forward. In other contexts,
it would mean other things.
>
> Oh, my word "Strongest" Darwin said "Fittest" , sure but is "Fittest"
> not a synonym for "Strongest"?
>
I don't know about God's magic language that He vouchsafed only to
you, but in English, there are very few exact synonyms; words have
ranges of meaning that often overlap but rarely coincide completely.
As I pointed out above, "strongest" has implications of greater
ability to fight or run, but the ability to resist disease or
parasites, or to be able to spot food, or to be camoflaged against
detection by predators, may be more valuable than physical strength or
personal armament. So they are not quite synonymous.
>
> Aaaah, intent , yes intent that is the
> question thing about that before some of you great defenders of Uncle
> Darwin charge headlong into this thread your rhetorical swords drawn
> full of sound and fury signifying nothing, the ramblings of an idiot.
>
"Rhetorical swords?" Did not God fix the meaning of the word "sword"
for all time, so that it had to be made of some sort of metal rather
than a string of words? How can I charge headlong into a thread?
What is your intent with "charge?" Is "full of sound and fury
signifying nothing, the ramblings of an idiot" a description of our
rhetorical swords or is it your new, self-descriptive sig quote?
-- Steven J.
David Hare-Scott
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> > I believe Language created matter...
> >
> > >> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
> > >> >> said so?
> >
> > I see this question still goes unanswered.
>
> My apologies: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God who said
> that He is the Truth, Way and Life! .... I love you Lord Jesus!
>
Appeal to Abstract Authority - a never ending fallacy by Backspace.
Congratulations Sue, hook line and sinker.
David
Rolf
> On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> > [babble deleted]
> >
> >
> > Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority said so?
> >
> > --
> > "It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
> > make us what we are." - Red Green
>
>
> created language? Where did language come from.
Define language.
> And if I am stupid what Chomsky then for saying that NS can't explain
> the origin of language - also stupid. Perhaps but then you must
> motivate your view.
>
Rolf
> On Nov 3, 8:03 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> > >> >> [babble deleted]
> >
> > >> >> > I believe Language created matter...
> >
> > >> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
> > >> >> said so?
> >
>
> My apologies: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God who said
> that He is the Truth, Way and Life! .... I love you Lord Jesus!
>
How can you love someone you don't know?
Rolf
> On Nov 3, 4:44 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 9:20 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> > > > [babble deleted]
> >
> > > > > I believe Language created matter...
> >
> > > > Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority said
so?
> >
> > > > --
> > > > "It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
> > > > make us what we are." - Red Green
> >
> > > Well I still don't know what you believe: Do you believe that matter
> > > created language? Where did language come from.
> > > the origin of language - also stupid. Perhaps but then you must
> > > motivate your view.
> >
> > arguing that language couldn't develop naturally, he was arguing that
> > language developed as a side effect of other evolutionary events such
> > as increase in brain size.
>
> What is an "evolutionary event"? An increase in brain size is just
> that an increase - what has this got to do with the word "evolution"?
> Would you clarify for me what happens when something "develops
> naturally" - what exactly is this?
>
Why don't you do some reading to learn what it is all about instead of
asking stupid questions, demonstrating ignorance?
Mujin
news:1194158317.8...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 3, 9:47 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> You're very good at misrepresenting Chomsky through the words of
>> others. But can you identify anything *he* says that supports your
>> characterization of him as saying that language could not have
>> evolved? I can certainly produce Chomsky's own words to the
>> contrary:
>
> http://masonmade.com/blog/my_conversation_with_noam_chomsky.html
> "....When asked about what role natural selection may have played in
> the development or evolution of language, he said that the more we
> learn about evolution, the more we find that the mutations and random
> variations that are viable and helpful are highly constrained by
> physical and chemical law. So evolution and natural selection are not
> synonymous. Natural selection is one process that helps direct
> evolution-which is simply the change over time of a group of
> organisms- but physical and chemical laws also channel evolution..."
This is at best a secondary citation - Mason is paraphrasing what he
understood Chomsky to mean. These are not Chomsky's words - and moreover I
notice that you have carefully snipped the direct quotations from Chomsky I
provided that he believes evolution, including to some small extent natural
selection, is responsible for the development of language in humans.
>
> Chomsky says that "...Evolution and natural selection are non
> synonymous..." and this is a point I have brought up previously which
> was ignored.
It hasn't been ignored at all. Indeed, I mentioned it myself in the post
to which you replied.
That natural selection is only one of the factors driving evolution has
been known since before Darwin. Before Darwin!? Why yes. Evolution was
written about by Lamarck, for example, with no reference to natural
selection. Darwin also considered the concept of evolution long before he
proposed the mechanism of natural selection.
> In any case notice that nobody is asking what is Chomsk's intent with
> natural selection. Is he talking about Darwin's version of natural
> selection namely "Survival of the Strongest" which Darwin said was a
> better expression?
Yes, Chomsky is referring to Darwin's basic concept of natural selection.
This is made explicitly clear in the primary sources I have provided. Are
there other conceptions you think he might be meaning?
> Mujin are you trying to say every time you use "natural selection" -
> "Survival of the Strongest" ? If not then which individual with what
> intent are you quoting when using NS. If it is your own phrase then
> you must define for me NS so I can understand your intent because
> presently I am interpreting it as being Darwin's term "Survival of the
> Strongest".
You have now descended into the intellectual nihilism of radical post-
modernism - a void from which no mind can return properly hinged. It seems
to me that while words and phrases can indeed have multiple meanings, there
is a serious issue here:
Even if there *are* multiple possible meanings for Chomsky's (and my) use
of "natural selection", one meaning is dramatically more common and
therefore a more likely candidate for the intended meaning. You need not
guess, merely assess: "If Mujin (or Chomsky) is speaking about some aspect
of biology, when he uses the phrase "natural selection" is it likely that
he is speaking of biological natural selection sensu Darwin?" The answer,
clearly, is yes. You may wish to take note of this method, as it is how
most people match their internal lexicon to the morass of grunts, barks and
groans others call "speech".
Where, owing to the vagueries of language, it is possible for two
definitions to be equally possible, a subtle clue as to which is meant is
carried in the context in which the word is used.
> Natural Selection as a stand alone word couplet is just a
> meaningless as "You have a green light"
Though, as you may have noticed, very few of the posts here in TO consist
of nothing but "natural selection"; usually it is contained within a
context of other words and phrases which - to the quick witted - might very
well provide hints as to what exactly is meant.
> I need to know who said "You have a green light" in order to
> understand the intent the person had.
Do you ordinarily consider individual words as entirely divorced from the
sentence in which they were uttered and the person who uttered them? If
not, I can't see how this is a problem. "Intent" is clearly important, but
you have the process entirely backwards: not being telepathic, the ordinary
person deduces intent from the words used, not the other way around.
> Intent sir, intent your
> semantics is just an attempt at communicating your intent and I simply
> don't know what your intent is.
This recursive exposition of primordial doubt is evidence that your foray
into the aforementioned Void may already have caused irreparable damage.
Infer my intent in the ordinary way: by reading what I actually wrote and
applying the usual meanings to the words I choose.
Believe it or not, few people choose words at random and saddle them with
private meanings. The lexicon of English is a public document of concensus
definitions. It is unproductive for either of us to stray too far in our
private thoughts from the commonly accepted meaning of "natural selection".
I assure you that Chomsky feels the same way.
> Oh, my word "Strongest" Darwin said "Fittest" , sure but is "Fittest"
> not a synonym for "Strongest"?
Possibly - it is made clear within the document in which Darwin defined
what he meant by "survival of the fittest". By "fit", he meant "best
suited". Does this mean "strong"? Certainly, by some uses of the word
"strong": "He is a strong candidate for the position." But by other uses
of the word: "That certainly is a strong cheese."
The ordinary person of average intelligence is able to easily discern the
relationships between words and the appropriate - if arbitrary - definition
which applies in a given case.
> Aaaah, intent , yes intent that is the
> question thing about that before some of you great defenders of Uncle
> Darwin charge headlong into this thread your rhetorical swords drawn
I actually feel a little sorry for you, seeing as you are apparently armed
only with a rhetorical noodle.
> full of sound and fury signifying nothing, the ramblings of an idiot.
Speaking of the ramblings of an idiot, do you intend to reply to the
substance of my post this time, or will you go off on a
phenomenological tangent again?
Dick C
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:36:31 -0700, backspace
> <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
>> appeal to abstract authority.
>
> You are a nut. Observing reality is not an "appeal to authority."
I think that is the problem with him. He is only able to understand
authority. To him, everything is based on the decree of some authority,
God, Jesus, Moses, his minister, and so on. He cannot understand that some
area of human enterprise do not depend upon some authority, rather on what
the evidence says.
He cannont understand that there is no highly important scientist who tells
all other scientists what and how to think. After all, that is how he
operates. His minister tells him how to think, and backs it up by saying
that God and Jesus say that.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
wf3h
> backspace wrote:
>> The worse part is that they were not bothered by this vaguery. They
> seemed perfectly content to leave it subjective. For a group that
> prides themselves for their alleged tough intellectualism, it was
> disappointing.
>
> One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
> philosophy and terminology of science. Just as wars have pushed
> technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
> the tools of science also.
>
> -T-
how can an ignorant, 14th century superstition like creationism,
dedicated to destroying logical thought, have anything to say about
science? it can even comprehend the concept, let alone 'sharpen' it
(whatever that means). if creationism were a person, it would be
arrested for being falling down drunk in a ditch.
Mujin
news:1194128955.7...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Yes. Words have great magic in some old systems of magic. Many
> cultures still keep their "true" names secret, so their enemies will
> not gain control over them.
Usenet is a prime example.
Cheezits
But it's not an *abstract* authority, so it's okay. :-D
John Wilkins
Rolf
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1i72ehr.y9nzpwv0r4mfN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
Recently heard an interview with Alan Greenspan on BBC World Service. He
told how he invented something he described as sub-speak (or CEB-speak?).
The purpose was to avoid using "no-comment"
as a possible telling answer. Instead, and he demonstrated an impressive
example, he lapsed into a long-winded and elaborate answer, without actually
saying anything.
But actually, that is what I hear politicians doing all the time. Grab all
the time you can and fill it with nonsene.
Cj
> Exactly "Science" is whatever you want to make it mean in order to
> communicate your intent. You have stated what is not your
> intent, what is then your intent with "science" ? It would for
> example help that in giving me a definition of "science" you would
> tell me who says so, because this person like all of us has some sort
> of agenda, world view and metaphysical idea of what the '"Truth" is.
> For example we are told that "Science deals with material things" -
> says who? Because the sentence as it is , is again just appeal to
> abstract authority, there is no Mr.Science that "deals" with anything.
> And thus I need to know who says so, in order to point out the fallacy
> to him and ask him for his intent. It is the intent or pragmatics that
> I am after not the semantics.
>
The nice thing about circular logic is that there are no loose ends.
Cj
backspace
> One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
> philosophy and terminology of science. Just as wars have pushed
> technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
> the tools of science also.
And this seems to be what Fodor and Skell is saying: Materialists are
loosing the debate against Creationists because they are using
"getting naturaled" terminology by some mathematically clueless fool
a 150 years ago. Nobody is falling for it anymore. Everybody knows
Darwin's rubbish about the "survival of the strongest" or "natural
selection" can't explain the non-linear control loops that keeps an
eagle stable in flight.
The materialists priest can be divided into two camps
a) Those that know nothing got naturaled but can't admit it because
they will loose their control over the universities. They are like the
pharisees who witnessed Christ's miracles - it didn't matter to them
since Christ was a threat to their position of power.
b) Dennett , Harshman and Wilkins who actually believes that they got
naturaled. There are very few of them left in academia.
Free Lunch
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1194191122.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 4, 8:17 am, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
>> philosophy and terminology of science. Just as wars have pushed
>> technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
>> the tools of science also.
>
>And this seems to be what Fodor and Skell is saying: Materialists are
>loosing the debate against Creationists
That assertion is false.
> because they are using
>"getting naturaled" terminology by some mathematically clueless fool
>a 150 years ago. Nobody is falling for it anymore. Everybody knows
>Darwin's rubbish about the "survival of the strongest" or "natural
>selection" can't explain the non-linear control loops that keeps an
>eagle stable in flight.
That was a meaningless comment. We already know that biological entities
work in ways that are completely consistent with chemistry and physics.
Claiming otherwise, as you do, is wrong.
>The materialists priest can be divided into two camps
>a) Those that know nothing got naturaled but can't admit it because
>they will loose their control over the universities. They are like the
>pharisees who witnessed Christ's miracles - it didn't matter to them
>since Christ was a threat to their position of power.
>b) Dennett , Harshman and Wilkins who actually believes that they got
>naturaled. There are very few of them left in academia.
More nonsense. Do you just string words together to see who will bite?
backspace
And until you define for me 'Science' you are not even wrong.
Cheezits
> And this seems to be what Fodor and Skell is saying: Materialists are
> loosing the debate against Creationists because they are using
> "getting naturaled"
No they are not. YOU are the only one using the made-up word
"naturaled".
> Everybody knows
> Darwin's rubbish about the "survival of the strongest" or "natural
> selection" can't explain the non-linear control loops that keeps an
> eagle stable in flight.
"Everybody knows" no such thing.
Cheezits
I guess I spoke too soon - looks like it's just a bot after all.
> And until you define for me 'Science' you are not even wrong.
Until you stop using the word "naturaled" you are not even speaking
English.
Tiny Bulcher
> backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> output:
>
> I guess I spoke too soon - looks like it's just a bot after all.
>
>> And until you define for me 'Science' you are not even wrong.
>
> Until you stop using the word "naturaled" you are not even speaking
> English.
How old is this pillock? I'm guessing about fourteen, fifteen.
Free Lunch
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1194191665....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>:
You are so cute when you parrot words you don't understand.
backspace
> > An increase in brain size is justthat an increase - what has this got to do with >the word "evolution"?
> Well, the archaeological record shows a gradual increase in brain
> size. The evolutionary explaination for this is that larger brain size
> gave populations a benefit that resulted in that trait being spread
> throughout the population. Over many generations this resulted in the
> brain size that we have today. This is text-book evolution, the change
> in frequency of alleles within a population over time.
Lets presume that smaller brain size would have been of benefit. Then
you would have told me the same story. And you are rationalizing after
the event. After the event we only know that increasing brain size is
beneficial. A theory is supposed to make predictions not rationalize
after the fact.
> > Would you clarify for me what happens when something "develops
> > naturally" - what exactly is this?
>
> Naturally as opposed to supernaturally or artificially. You, for
> example, don't believe that language developed naturally, you believe
> something else that has no relevance to science (not the person, the
> subject), which is fine. We use the word 'natural' to distinguish
> between things created by man and things that exist in nature.
Until you define for me the "subject" of science your are not even
wrong.
Woland
>
> - Show quoted text -
Try using a dictionary.
Free Lunch
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1194196667.3...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 3, 8:29 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > An increase in brain size is justthat an increase - what has this got to do with >the word "evolution"?
>
>> Well, the archaeological record shows a gradual increase in brain
>> size. The evolutionary explaination for this is that larger brain size
>> gave populations a benefit that resulted in that trait being spread
>> throughout the population. Over many generations this resulted in the
>> brain size that we have today. This is text-book evolution, the change
>> in frequency of alleles within a population over time.
>
>Lets presume that smaller brain size would have been of benefit. Then
>you would have told me the same story. And you are rationalizing after
>the event. After the event we only know that increasing brain size is
>beneficial. A theory is supposed to make predictions not rationalize
>after the fact.
Then don't ask questions that ignore what the theory does say so you can
ask misleading questions about what it does not say. Focusing on a
single attribute while ignoring the organism and the environment shows
that you don't understand the problem.
>> > Would you clarify for me what happens when something "develops
>> > naturally" - what exactly is this?
>>
>> Naturally as opposed to supernaturally or artificially. You, for
>> example, don't believe that language developed naturally, you believe
>> something else that has no relevance to science (not the person, the
>> subject), which is fine. We use the word 'natural' to distinguish
>> between things created by man and things that exist in nature.
>
>Until you define for me the "subject" of science your are not even
>wrong.
So, you still have no clue what science is.
Mike L
[...]
> Oh, my word "Strongest" Darwin said "Fittest" , sure but is "Fittest"
> not a synonym for "Strongest"?
Perhaps among weight-lifters and similar athletes. In this context,
however, it means "most suitable". If you look in the full version of
the Oxford English Dictionary, you will find the original and central
meaning of the word "fit" is: "Well adapted or suited to the
conditions or circumstances of the case, answering the purpose, proper
or appropriate."
> Aaaah, intent , yes intent that is the
> question thing about that before some of you great defenders of Uncle
> Darwin charge headlong into this thread your rhetorical swords drawn
> full of sound and fury signifying nothing, the ramblings of an idiot.
Now, I beg you to pay attention to what follows. Not long ago, I
suggested that you appeared to be working too hard on this matter, and
were in danger of "burn-out". You are still doing it: you have been
saying the same things over and over and over again for weeks, and you
have repeatedly found that you don't understand quite ordinary things
said by people in these discussions. You are going to make yourself
ill if you carry on like this. You /need/ to take some time off; your
doctor will suggest something to help you relax.
--
Mike.
Woland
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or
truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general
laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained
through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by
systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or
principles; proficiency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Please write an essay comparing and contrasting the information in the
above links. After your comparison you should conclude with a lengthy
discourse in what you've learned.
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:36:31 -0700, backspace
> <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
> > appeal to abstract authority.
>
> You are a nut. Observing reality is not an "appeal to authority."
Quoting the Creator is appeal to authority.
wf3h
> And this seems to be what Fodor and Skell is saying: Materialists are
> loosing the debate against Creationists because they are using
> "getting naturaled"
what is meant by 'losing' the debate? no scientist accepts
creationism. only american fundamentalists...and taliban type
muslims....accept it.
backspace can't define what 'losing' a debate even means...
terminology by some mathematically clueless fool
> a 150 years ago. Nobody is falling for it anymore. Everybody knows
> Darwin's rubbish about the "survival of the strongest" or "natural
> selection" can't explain the non-linear control loops that keeps an
> eagle stable in flight.
who is 'everyone'? why does 'everyone' matter? who is 'no one' and
what is meant by 'falling for it'?
backspace can't define his terms.
> The materialists priest can be divided into two camps
> a) Those that know nothing got naturaled but can't admit it because
> they will loose their control over the universities. They are like the
> pharisees who witnessed Christ's miracles - it didn't matter to them
> since Christ was a threat to their position of power.
> b) Dennett , Harshman and Wilkins who actually believes that they got
> naturaled. There are very few of them left in academia.
the idea that 'god did it' was, and is a loser's idea. it stopped
science for a thousand years...and christians still believe it.
amazing. a religion based on ignorance.
astounding...truly astounding.
J. J. Lodder
Vend
> On Nov 3, 2:32 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Nov, 22:09, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 11:34 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 3, 8:03 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 4:31 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> > > > > >> >> [babble deleted]
>
>
> > > > > >> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
> > > > > >> >> said so?
>
> > > > > I see this question still goes unanswered.
>
> > > > My apologies: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God who said
> > > > that He is the Truth, Way and Life! .... I love you Lord Jesus!
>
> > > Jesus is Language, which I don't suppose I would put past you.
>
> > I think it is quite standard Christian theology to identify the "Son"
> > with the "Logos".
>
> You seem to be confused. We are discussing Backspace, not standard
> Christian doctrines. I understand that there are some thousands of
> Christian sects, but Backspace is unique among all of them, as far as
> I can tell.
>
> 1. He thinks that English is the original language.
Actually I thought that he thinks that the original language is a sort
of Slavic-Greek hybrid which he allegedly speaks during his
glossolalia events.
> 2. He believes that we are not "allowed" to change the meanings of
> some words, the short list of which he is the sole keeper.
> 3. He believes that those who speak in tongues are deluded, except for
> him, because his glossolalia sounds out a "real" language. He knows
> this because someone who has heard another language says that his
> babble sounds something like that other language. What this is
> supposed to establish escapes me.
> 4. He believes that using words in ways which he does not understand
> means that nobody can understand them.
Don't forget that he also invents new words (for instance,
"naturaled") for which he doesn't provide definitions and claims
dishonesty when people doesn't answer questions refering to them.
> > Also, according to some interpetations of the Genesis creation myth,
> > God created things by "speaking them into existence".
>
> Yes. Words have great magic in some old systems of magic.
Indeed, most religions ascribe spiritual/magical value to words.
Holy texts are usually not translated and care is taken to preserve
them down to the last character, rituals and prayers are also usually
done in the original language, even if it is not the native language
of the belivers.
Christianity is atypical as it allows translating the holy texts and
praying in multiple languages (probably because Christianity started
as an hybrid between Greek, Jewish and Roman cultures, thus it never
had a true original language).
> Many
> cultures still keep their "true" names secret, so their enemies will
> not gain control over them.
>
> Kermit
Vend
<snip unintellegible rant containing the undefined word "naturaled">
> b) Dennett , Harshman and Wilkins who actually believes
The Unholy Trinity?
>that they got
> naturaled. There are very few of them left in academia.
Yes, there are three of them. (or one?)
Kermit
> On Nov 4, 1:30 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Free will is another issue altogether than your linguistic confusion,
> > you know.
> > Science != philosophical materialism
> > Science != atheism
> > Science != determinism
>
> communicate your intent.
I'm only going to say this 800 more times (or until I get bored), so
listen up. "science" means what the scientists mean by it. Just like
jazz musicians agree pretty much on what "jazz" is, and boxers agree
on what an "uppercut" is. This common defini tion is available in most
dictionaries. One can also look up the subject in encyclopedias, and
get a much better understanding.
And the word "science" is rarely used to communicate intent.
> You have stated what is not your
> intent, what is then your intent with "science" ?
My intent with the activity science is to understand the world around
me. My use of the word science has never been, as far as I remember,
to communicate intent. Not do other people normally do so.
> It would for
> example help that in giving me a definition of "science" you would
> tell me who says so,
Dictionaries typically explain what the common usage of a word is, by
literate people.
> because this person like all of us has some sort
> of agenda,
Is your agenda to come across as an idiot, or is that an emergent
property?
> world view and metaphysical idea of what the '"Truth" is.
This is correct. One thing that scientists (and those of us merely
aware of and friendly to science) have in common is the belief that
scientific methodology is the only reliable way to understand the
material world.
Models must fit all the facts.
Facts are facts only if they are verifiable.
The models must be testable (they must make predictions).
We learn by continuing to accumulate data, and adjucting the models as
necessary.
> For example we are told that "Science deals with material things" -
> says who?
Everybody who speaks English, pretty much. Certainly all scientists.
> Because the sentence as it is , is again just appeal to
> abstract authority, there is no Mr.Science that "deals" with anything.
You have been told that "science" refers to the society of science, a
linguistic shorthand for the people who do science and who support
them.
Your problem with language is not a problem for science.
Your obsessive linguistic confusion does not in any way refute the
data, nor the only testable model which fits the data.
> And thus I need to know who says so, in order to point out the fallacy
> to him
There is no fallacy, only your determined confusion.
> and ask him for his intent.
Scientists typically explain the universe as they understand it. They
do not normally speak of intent, unless they are describing an
experiment.
> It is the intent or pragmatics that
> I am after not the semantics.
If you cannot understand what definitions are, if you do not
understand that most people do not communicate their intent most of
the time when they talk or write, then you cannot possibly
intelligibly discuss pragmatics.
Kermit
Kermit
He *has tried, and failed miserably every time.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 4, 8:17 am, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
> > philosophy and terminology of science. Just as wars have pushed
> > technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
> > the tools of science also.
>
> And this seems to be what Fodor and Skell is saying: Materialists are
> loosing the debate against Creationists because they are using
> "getting naturaled" terminology
Only you are using that word.
> by some mathematically clueless fool
> a 150 years ago.
If you mean Darwin, his fundamental theory required little math. You
have not successfully understood introductory descriptions of his
theory, let alone the current theory after 160 years of accumulated
evidence.
> Nobody is falling for it anymore.
Pretty much everybody except the religious fundamentalists of the Near
East and the US have no trouble with it.
> Everybody knows
> Darwin's rubbish about the "survival of the strongest" or "natural
> selection" can't explain the non-linear control loops that keeps an
> eagle stable in flight.
Why should it? It is curious that Creationists, whose model explains
nothing, demand that the ToE explain everything. It explains why
species change and diversify over time.
> The materialists priest can be divided into two camps
> a) Those that know nothing got naturaled but can't admit it because
> they will loose their control over the universities.
Bwahahaha! What do your linguistic confusions and childish obsessions
have to do with anything real? And Creationists get nowhere in
universities because they are superstitious and ignorant; the same
reason astrologers and numerologists get nowhere.
> They are like the
> pharisees who witnessed Christ's miracles - it didn't matter to them
> since Christ was a threat to their position of power.
<snort>
Sounds more to me like you and the other Creationists just want to be
special - the same reason the Church was outraged by Galileo's
suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
> b) Dennett , Harshman and Wilkins who actually believes that they got
> naturaled.
You are lying, or you are insane. You cannot quote any of them saying
this.
> There are very few of them left in academia.
If you were better at math, you'd be an idiot savant.
Kermit
Slimebot McGoo
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 3, 8:03 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 3, 4:31 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
>> >> >> [babble deleted]
>>
>> >> >> > I believe Language created matter...
>>
>> >> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
>> >> >> said so?
>>
>> I see this question still goes unanswered.
>
>My apologies: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God who said
>that He is the Truth, Way and Life! .... I love you Lord Jesus!
So, then, the answer is you're a raving nutcase.
McGoo
Slimebot McGoo
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...Materialists are loosing the debate against Creationists
Newsflash 1: This is Earth.
Newsflash 2: On Earth the word is "losing", moron.
McGoo
mel turner
news:1194191122.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Still posting? Have you gotten around to ever having had a point
yet? Or are you still stuck on foolishly pretending to be completely
unable to understand whatever it is you think you're talking about
as though your lack of understanding were somehow indicative of a
flaw in the subject matter instead of in you?
> On Nov 4, 8:17 am, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
>> philosophy and terminology of science.
Hardly. It perhaps only serves as another very bad example of
pseudoscience.
>>Just as wars have pushed
>> technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
>> the tools of science also.
How can it, when it has nothing at all to offer any
science?
> And this seems to be what Fodor and Skell is saying: Materialists are
> loosing the debate
They're letting it loose?
>against Creationists because they are using
> "getting naturaled" terminology
No one but backsplash uses "naturaled". Can't you try to stop all this
silly ignoranting? Or is that "ninnification"?
For someone who pretends to care about language and meaning, your
pathetic abuse of words seems a tad ironic.
>by some mathematically clueless fool
> a 150 years ago.
But then, the only "clueless fool" involved seems to be
you.
>Nobody is falling for it anymore. Everybody knows
> Darwin's rubbish about the "survival of the strongest" or "natural
> selection" can't explain the non-linear control loops that keeps an
> eagle stable in flight.
By "nobody" you evidently mean "everybody better educated than
backsplash". By "falling for it" you seem to mean "accepting it as
the scientific explanation best supported by the evidence". By
"everybody knows" you seem to mean "backsplash really, really
wishes it were actually true".
> The materialists priest can be divided into two camps
> a) Those that know nothing got naturaled
There you go, ridiculousing again ["silly-buggering" looked
funny].
>but can't admit it because
> they will loose their control over the universities. They are like the
> pharisees who witnessed Christ's miracles - it didn't matter to them
> since Christ was a threat to their position of power.
> b) Dennett , Harshman and Wilkins who actually believes that they got
> naturaled. There are very few of them left in academia.
Do stop all this foolishing and ignoranting. Cease the
dimwitticisms.
cheers
Ken Shackleton
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:45:22 -0800, backspace
>
> >...Materialists are loosing the debate against Creationists
>
> Newsflash 1: This is Earth.
>
> Newsflash 2: On Earth the word is "losing", moron.
>
> McGoo
Maybe he meant "loosing" as when you loose an arrow from the bow.
;)
Ken Shackleton
wrote:
> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194191122.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> Still posting? Have you gotten around to ever having had a point
> yet? Or are you still stuck on foolishly pretending to be completely
> unable to understand whatever it is you think you're talking about
> as though your lack of understanding were somehow indicative of a
> flaw in the subject matter instead of in you?
>
> > On Nov 4, 8:17 am, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
> >> philosophy and terminology of science.
>
> Hardly. It perhaps only serves as another very bad example of
> pseudoscience.
>
> >>Just as wars have pushed
> >> technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
> >> the tools of science also.
>
> How can it, when it has nothing at all to offer any
> science?
>
> > And this seems to be what Fodor and Skell is saying: Materialists are
> > loosing the debate
>
> They're letting it loose?
Cry "havoc" and let loose the dogs of materialism.
John Wilkins
> "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1194191122.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
...
> > The materialists priest can be divided into two camps
> > a) Those that know nothing got naturaled
>
> There you go, ridiculousing again ["silly-buggering" looked
> funny].
>
> >but can't admit it because
> > they will loose their control over the universities. They are like the
> > pharisees who witnessed Christ's miracles - it didn't matter to them
> > since Christ was a threat to their position of power.
> > b) Dennett , Harshman and Wilkins who actually believes that they got
> > naturaled. There are very few of them left in academia.
>
> Do stop all this foolishing and ignoranting. Cease the
> dimwitticisms.
I think you mean "cease dimwitting"
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Dick C
> On Nov 4, 8:17 am, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
>> philosophy and terminology of science. Just as wars have pushed
>> technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
>> the tools of science also.
>
> And this seems to be what Fodor and Skell is saying: Materialists are
> loosing the debate against Creationists because they are using
> "getting naturaled" terminology by some mathematically clueless fool
> a 150 years ago. Nobody is falling for it anymore. Everybody knows
> Darwin's rubbish about the "survival of the strongest" or "natural
> selection" can't explain the non-linear control loops that keeps an
> eagle stable in flight.
> The materialists priest can be divided into two camps
> a) Those that know nothing got naturaled but can't admit it because
> they will loose their control over the universities. They are like the
> pharisees who witnessed Christ's miracles - it didn't matter to them
> since Christ was a threat to their position of power.
> b) Dennett , Harshman and Wilkins who actually believes that they got
> naturaled. There are very few of them left in academia.
Actually, you forgot the most extreme materialist in the debate. The
creationist. Instead of accepting reality, and quietly holding their
beliefs, they insist that their beliefs about god are reflected in the real
world. They also embrace all the riches and fortunes of the material
world, while pretty much rejecting all the spiritial aspects of the
christian religion.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
backspace
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 11:34:34 -0700, backspace
>
>
>
> >On Nov 3, 8:03 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 3, 4:31 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> output:
> >> >> >> [babble deleted]
>
> >> >> >> > I believe Language created matter...
>
> >> >> >> Why do you believe such a stupid thing? Because some authority
> >> >> >> said so?
>
> >> I see this question still goes unanswered.
>
> >My apologies: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God who said
> >that He is the Truth, Way and Life! .... I love you Lord Jesus!
>
> So, then, the answer is you're a raving nutcase.
>
> McGoo
Which is a distinct possibility since I claim to be perhaps the only
Christian that can speak in tongues. Who shall we settle the issue
then? The Nov.2007 edition of Popular mechanics has something about
MRI machines and how they can determine wether a person is lying or
not by about a 99% accuracy. Also Dr.Newberg gave a falsification test
here:
Article in http://www.slate.com/id/2153947 "Thinking in Tongues What
can we learn from a babbling brain?" ".....But in a certain sense, a
set of blank scans could be far more interesting. What would it mean
if someone had an intense emotional experience that didn't show up on
a brain image? Even Andrew Newberg (http://www.andrewnewberg.com)
admits that "the most interesting result from a brain scan of someone
in prayer would be to find no significant change in the brain,"
especially at the moment of the most profound spiritual experience.
Believers might take a negative result in the glossolalia study as
proof of divine intervention....."
Think about it if God is really God and Jesus is really Language in
the flesh then the least he could do as God is provide us with some
sort of falsification test such as speaking in tongues. Some of you
keep on saying I am crazy and I keep on saying then why don't we
organize an MRI scanning session testing Dr.Newberg's falsification
test then? I have e-mailed Dr.Newberg yet he doesn't want to talk to
me. Why is he willing to waste his time with people who can obviously
not speak something that doesn't even resemble a language yet when
finally somebody steps forwards with tongues that does sound like a
language all the linguists are silent? Yet they are running around
after Glossolalia subjects actively pleading with them to allow their
tongues to be anelized. So what is the problem then with my tongues.
And notice that not a single one of them is willing to say I am
speaking babbel - because you have to motivate it. Some say I am
speaking "rubbish" - sure why don't you hand a thesis with the single
sentence Stephanus Rensburg (backspace) is speaking rubbish and see if
you get your grade.
By motivate I mean something like below:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w023125824v8q504/?p=2ddf93addfaa4e3b9e8fdfa7321c4e60&pi=5
"...This is a psycholinguistic study of glossolalia produced by four
speakers in an experimental setting. Acoustical patterns (signal
waveform, fundamental frequency, and amplitude changes) were compared.
The frequency of occurrence of vowels and consonants was computed for
the glossolalic samples and compared with General American English.
The results showed that three of the four speakers had substantially
higher vowel-to-consonant ratios than are found in English speech.
Phonology, morphology, and syntax of the four glossolalic productions
were analyzed. This revealed two distinct forms of glossolalia. One
form, which we called ldquoformulaicrdquo tends towards stereotypy and
repetitiousness. The second form, which we called formulaic shows more
novelty and unpredictability in the chaining of speech-like elements.
These contrastive forms of glossolalia may relate to dimensions of
linguistic creativity. Precise correlates with personality patterns,
educational backgrounds, psychopathology, and other sociolinguistic
variables remain to be employed..."
A phonemic analysis of nine samples of glossolalic speech. Psychon.
Sci 22:81-83 by Bryant Ernest and Daniel O'Connell.
--
Falsify my Glossolalia
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
Here http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=202001 I debated the
atheists on my Glossolalia
backspace
> Cj <cw...@gwi.net> wrote:
> > "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Lodder you haven't answered my question from the other thread: Do you
believe like the AAAS that evoluition happens by chance?
backspace
> My intent with the activity science is to understand the world around
> me. My use of the word science has never been, as far as I remember,
> to communicate intent. Not do other people normally do so.
And this "activity" is to provide at the very least a well reasoned
description. Now if we define this as science then we know what we are
talking about. The trouble is that not everybody will agree with my
definition and hence we can't talk about "science" since there is no
formal generally accepted definition of what exactly we mean by it.
> This is correct. One thing that scientists (and those of us merely
> aware of and friendly to science) have in common is the belief that
> scientific methodology is the only reliable way to understand the
> material world.
Again you are appealing to abstract authority. You can't be
"friendly" to Mr.Science since he doesn't exist. If you mean you
are friendly to the activity of providing at the very least a well
reasoned description of what we observe then what are you trying to
say then? That somebody like Dr. Gitt a YEC didn't provide a well
reasoned description with his Gitt information theory? The intent you
are trying to communicate with "science" is that there is no other
reality other than the physical reality. This is your metaphysical
beliefs and you refuse to accept a description of a phenomena even if
well reasoned from YEC because they don't share your religious belief
that your language depends on the way the atoms are bouncing in your
head. We must seperate the issues here. A description that is well
reasoned has got nothing to do with the metaphysical beliefs of the
person who made it. The description must be judged on its own merits
even if the person believes that his thoughts are just illusions like
materialists have to believe. The trouble with materialists is that
they don't even know what they believe because they are in some sort
of intimate cartoonish universe with appeal to abstract authority,
circular reasoning tautologies and the semantic impossibility - NS,
invoked as a universal mechanism that explains everything.
J. J. Lodder
backspace
Until you define for me "reality" you are not even wrong.
richardal...@googlemail.com
until you define for me "are" you are not even wrong
until you define for me "define" you are not even wrong
until you define for me "even" you are not even wrong
until you define for me "for" you are not even wrong
until you define for me "me" you are not even wrong
until you define for me "not" you are not even wrong
until you define for me "Until" you are not even wrong
until you define for me "wrong." you are not even wrong
until you define for me "you" you are not even wrong
until you define for me "you" you are not even wrong
RF
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
J. J. Lodder
> On Nov 4, 12:17 am, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > backspace wrote:
> >> The worse part is that they were not bothered by this vaguery. They
> > seemed perfectly content to leave it subjective. For a group that
> > prides themselves for their alleged tough intellectualism, it was
> > disappointing.
> >
> > One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
> > philosophy and terminology of science. Just as wars have pushed
> > technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
> > the tools of science also.
> >
> > -T-
>
>
> how can an ignorant, 14th century superstition like creationism,
> dedicated to destroying logical thought, have anything to say about
> science? it can even comprehend the concept, let alone 'sharpen' it
> (whatever that means). if creationism were a person, it would be
> arrested for being falling down drunk in a ditch.
Name a 14th century creationist please?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> One good thing to come out of Creationism is a jolt to clean up the
> philosophy and terminology of science. Just as wars have pushed
> technology in the past, the Creationism push is hopefully sharpening
> the tools of science also.
That's as silly as claiming that Velikovsky or Von Danikken
have forced astronomers to clean up their acts,
or to sharpen their tools,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> backspace wrote:
>
> > 'Science' is not defined, nobody knows what the
> > word is supposed to mean. Everybody uses it to
> > communicate some form of intent and this intent differs
> > from person to person.
>
> I full-heartedly agree. About a year ago after suggesting that the
> difference between SETI and looking for intelligence in DNA patterns
> was not materially different, the issue of the definition of "science"
> came up as a key sticking point.
You are at least ten years late.
Daedalus proposed long ago to code the world literature in DNA.
By inserting it into the junk DNA of some organism
that's unlikely to die out in the near future
its survival in the case of a breakdown of civilization
might be ensured.
Next he considered what better place there could possibly be
for God to store His word in a way
that no unbeliever can possibly doubt.
So he set the cryptography specialists at DREADCO
to apply the most sophisticated decryption algorithms available
to junk DNA sequences.
But alas, so far no "IN THE BEGINNING ..."
has come thundering forth.
Best,
Jan
Cheezits
>> Actually, you forgot the most extreme materialist in the debate. The
>> creationist. Instead of accepting reality, and quietly holding their
>> beliefs, they insist that their beliefs about god are reflected in
>> the real world.
You can't argue with this, can you? :-D
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Cheezits
> On Nov 5, 3:31 am, Slimebot McGoo <oldert...@youth.inc> wrote:
>> So, then, the answer is you're a raving nutcase.
>
> Christian that can speak in tongues.
Since I have seen plenty of other Christians claim to speak in tongues,
that is crazy no matter how you look at it.
[etc.]
> Think about it if God is really God and Jesus is really Language in
> the flesh then the least he could do as God is provide us with some
> sort of falsification test such as speaking in tongues.
Yes, that IS the least he could do, isn't it? And it wouldn't even be
that hard to test. You don't need any MRI or fancy technology or
whatever. Just get someone with this alleged ability to say something in
tongues, and write down the English translation, then have it
independantly verified by someone else who speaks the language. This
could have been done countless times over the last 2000 years. And yet,
it never has been. God could make the same statement in the same tongue
to different people but apparently never does.
> I have e-mailed Dr.Newberg yet he doesn't want to talk to
> me. Why is he willing to waste his time with people who can obviously
> not speak something that doesn't even resemble a language yet when
> finally somebody steps forwards with tongues that does sound like a
> language all the linguists are silent?
Maybe it only sounds like a language to you.
[etc.]
> Some say I am
> speaking "rubbish"
[acoustics of glossalalia deleted]
Dude - most of the time you *are* speaking rubbish. The whole purpose of
speaking in ANY language is to communicate ideas to others. Maybe you
think you have been making some sort of point but most of the time all
I'm seeing is word salad with little logical connection to what came
before. And somehow I get the impression that everything *we* write is
just as meaningless to you. This post is the most lucid I've ever seen
you.
I'm sure the phonemic analysis of speaking in tongues has its place but
that has little to do with whether it means anything. And if it doesn't
mean anything it isn't a language.
Sue
--
She hears mooing from another dimension, but there isn't
a cow in sight... - heard in a commercial
Ymir
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By motivate I mean something like below:
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/w023125824v8q504/?p=2ddf93addfaa4e3b9e8fd
> fa7321c4e60&pi=5
>
> "...This is a psycholinguistic study of glossolalia produced by four
> speakers in an experimental setting. Acoustical patterns (signal
> waveform, fundamental frequency, and amplitude changes) were compared.
> The frequency of occurrence of vowels and consonants was computed for
> the glossolalic samples and compared with General American English.
> The results showed that three of the four speakers had substantially
> higher vowel-to-consonant ratios than are found in English speech.
> Phonology, *morphology*, and *syntax* of the four glossolalic productions
> were analyzed. [emphasis added]
How exactly is one supposed to analyse the morphology or syntax of
glossolalia?
I don't have access to the actual article, but this particlar claim in
the abstract immediately triggers red flags regarding this study.
Andre
--
use rot thirteen to email
ntv...@tznvy.pbz
Kermit
> On Nov 5, 2:07 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My intent with the activity science is to understand the world around
> > me. My use of the word science has never been, as far as I remember,
> > to communicate intent. Not do other people normally do so.
>
> And this "activity" is to provide at the very least a well reasoned
> description. Now if we define this as science then we know what we are
> talking about.
This has been explained ot you before, and most dictionary definitions
cover it as well as any brief definition can.
> The trouble is that not everybody will agree with my
> definition and hence we can't talk about "science" since there is no
> formal generally accepted definition of what exactly we mean by it.
What do you intend by "formal"? What are your pragmatics for appearing
obtuse?
Clue # 3, take 426:
Very few words have formal definitions. Dictionaries look at how each
word is used by literate people. That is what a definition is - it's
how it is used. The regulars on this newsgroups are generally
scientists or people familiar with the process. Their use of the word
*is the definition.
>
> > This is correct. One thing that scientists (and those of us merely
> > aware of and friendly to science) have in common is the belief that
> > scientific methodology is the only reliable way to understand the
> > material world.
>
> Again you are appealing to abstract authority. You can't be
> "friendly" to Mr.Science since he doesn't exist.
This has been explained to you before; by me at least thrice, and by
others innumerable times. Science is the society and methodology of
scientists, and their accumulated knowledge.
It is linguistic shorthand. Your crippled brain is not a problem for
science.
> If you mean you
> are friendly to the activity of providing at the very least a well
> reasoned description of what we observe then what are you trying to
> say then?
This is correct, as you know.
> That somebody like Dr. Gitt a YEC didn't provide a well
> reasoned description with his Gitt information theory?
I haven't read it. I do know that no scientist has rejected the theory
of evolution and embraced Creationism for scientific reasons. It is
always for religious reasons, and usually they are honest enough to
say so outright.
From
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp
Gitt says
"Danger no. 1 [of theistic evolution]: Misrepresentation of the Nature
of God
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely
perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah
32:17). The Apostle John tells us that 'God is love', 'light', and
'life' (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His
work is described as 'very good' (Genesis 1:31) and
'perfect' (Deuteronomy 32:4).
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God
because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as
principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for
millions of years of death and horror before sin.)"
Here he clearly states that the problem with theistic evolution (which
in itself introduces God, but as a philosophical idea, not scientific
- usually) is that it does not put god front and center. This is not
science.
The rest of his article is more of the same.
> The intent you
> are trying to communicate with "science" is that there is no other
> reality other than the physical reality.
No; the implicit idea behind scientific methodology is that there is
no other reality that can be studied by science. How would you offer
verifiable evidence for your god? Will he perform a miracle every time
you pray a certain way, like a trained monkey? Unless you can get
supernatural events to reoccur on a regular basis under the same
conditions, they can't be studied by science.
You want the religious college, which is across the commons and past
the university bookstore. This is the life sciences building.
Many scientists believe in another realm, one of spirit, but they know
that this is a different activity from science. Belief in gods play no
part in doing science, anymore than it does in carpentry or auto
mechanics.
> This is your metaphysical
> beliefs and you refuse to accept a description of a phenomena even if
> well reasoned from YEC because they don't share your religious belief
I have no religious beliefs.
> that your language depends on the way the atoms are bouncing in your
> head.
In a sense, music depends on the movement of atom in musical
instruments, but it's a funny and not very useful way of describing
it.
> We must seperate the issues here.
Hallelujah! We agree on something.
> A description that is well
> reasoned has got nothing to do with the metaphysical beliefs of the
> person who made it.
I'm not sure that descriptions are normally reasoned, but OK...
> The description must be judged on its own merits
> even if the person believes that his thoughts are just illusions like
> materialists have to believe.
How about if dishonest idiots continually misrepresent their targets,
hoping that others won't notice?
1.I am a philosophical materialist, and I do not believe my thoughts
are illusions.
2. Not all scientists are philosophical materialists.
> The trouble with materialists is that
> they don't even know what they believe
*You certainly do not.
What evidence do you have that I do not know what I believe? (Hint:
bald assertions are not evidence.)
For the lurkers I'll explain what's going on here: Backspace *seems to
think that philosophical materialism implies that thoughts would not
be real, they would somehow be less substantial or legitimate than
dualism would imply. But this is different from asserting that
materialists would come to that conclusion. I have never heard a
materialists who asserted that, altho there likely are some out there
somewhere.
So he's really making two assertions, justifying neither, and
equivocating.
> because they are in some sort
> of intimate cartoonish universe with appeal to abstract authority,
Google does not find this term - except *your posts.
> circular reasoning tautologies and the semantic impossibility - NS,
> invoked as a universal mechanism that explains everything.
No, it only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.
But the study of developmental pathologies might explain your problems
with comprehension, and maybe even your persistent and ineffectual
dishonesty.
Kermit