Moral Relativism Revisited
Gandalf Grey
over the term "Moral Relativism," I would like to make some further remarks
on the subject. I do this not so much in an attempt to refute any
particular view expressed in the group, as I do as a way of clearing up
whatever misconceptions I may have caused with respect to the issue, and as
a way of at least making my own position on the subject as clear as
possible.
To begin, I offer a few standard definitions that will serve at least as MY
understanding of the various forms of relativism as it relates to ethical
issues.
Moral Positivism: the view that what makes moral standards right is that
they are the ones actually adopted (by a society, by an authority). The
label is infrequently used, but theories of this kind are not uncommon.
Moral positivism of the sociological variety is relativist and rules out any
moral challenge to an established social morality.
---Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, Penguin Books, 2000.
Cultural Relativism: This term is used for at least two different views.
The first is uncontroversial, the second is not: (1) different cultures have
different customs, social institutions, moralities, etc.; (2) the view that
those who belong to one culture cannot form a valid judgement of any
custom, institution, belief, etc. which is part of a culture which differs
significantly from their own. The view that there is no non-relative
(absolute) basis from which to judge, and that proper judgements can only be
made from inside, i.e. from the standpoint of the culture judged.
---Ibid.
Ethical Relativism 1 The view that, as a matter of fact, different
individuals, groups, societies, cultures, differ in their view of what is
good or bad, right or wrong, in relation to character and conduct. 2 The
view that whatever is good or bad, right or wrong, in respect of character
and conduct, is so only relatively: (a) relative *to a situation.* This can
mean (i) that some rules can have exceptions; circumstances sometimes change
cases; or (ii) that all rules can have exceptions. This is not
uncontroversial. Relativism in this sense opposes absolutism, according to
which some rules admit of no exceptions [...] (iii) that different rules are
appropriate depending on the situation (b) opinions are true or false,
correct or incorrect (i) only relative to the individual whose opinion it is
[...] or (ii) only relative to the group or society, whose opinion it
is.....
---Ibid.
William Tolhurst (1989) put it in a slightly different way without losing
the sense of the problem.
Cultural Relativism (CR): The moral beliefs of some cultures often conflict
with the moral beliefs of other cultures.
Situational Relativism (SR): Acts which are right when performed in one
culture may be wrong when performed in another.
Ethical Relativism (ER): Acts are right if (and only if) they are permitted
by the moral beliefs of the cultures in which they are performed.
Cultural Relativism, as described by Tolhurst seems a descriptive belief
that it's difficult to argue over. That cultures conflict with other
cultures over matters moral seems a perfectly evident fact that is not
debatable. Situational Relativism makes this general view more specific and
notes that in some cultures what is morally wrong may be [and frequently is]
right in other cultures. Again, there is nothing particularly controversial
about such a claim. That is to say that it would not be particularly
surprising to find that one society believes that it is immoral to work on
Sundays and that another society might find that it is quite moral to work
on Sundays. It would be right in one and wrong in the other.
Now, "some" [and I hope by this word to avoid some serious disagreements]
take this
to mean that all of the conflicting moralities held by the various cultures
involved are 'correct' for the culture in which they are found. More
specifically, they hold that slavery, for example, is correct for the
society in which it is found so long as a belief in the 'goodness' of
slavery truly represents the fundamental moral beliefs of that society.
Such individuals are variously described as 'strong argument' Cultural
Relativists, Ethical Relativists and Moral Positivists. I will refer to the
view as Ethical Relativism.
One rather obvious problem with this view is that one cannot infer from the
fact that a belief is widely held to be true, that it is actually true.
Another argument arises from the difference between fundamental and
non-fundamental beliefs. Some Ethical Relativists suggest that what's
being argued about is not so much fundamental moral convictions as
non-fundamental or derived concepts. This is more or less what Russell had
in mind when he remarked that he felt that most moral arguments seem to be
more about means than about ends. Arguments about non-fundamental and
non-moral beliefs tend to be more constructive with no objections over
differences in point of view.
But this raises a more serious question. If the nonmoral beliefs of a
society can be wrong, why can't their moral beliefs be wrong? Is there an
important fundamental difference between moral and nonmoral belief such as
to make it reasonable to assume that the one should be immune to crticism
and the other not immune. It seems to me that it is up to the Ethical
Relativists to show what there is that is so different about a moral
judgement that it should not be considered prone to the same concept of
error and mistake that we expect any other kind of judgement to fall under.
In general, Ethical Relativism [or at least its strong view] seems to fail
because it collapses the distinctions we have between believing that we are
right about something and actually being right about something. Obviously,
Emotivist conceptions that strive to bring a special kind of definition to
moral statements are attempts to solve this problem, but they never quite do
solve it. Emotivist and Subjectivist spins on ethical relativism seem to
only substitute their logical flaws for Ethical Relativism's own flaws.
Even within the context of a single culture, there are difficulties to such
a viewpoint. Consider a society in which we find that mercy killing is
acceptable. Granted that whatever a society feels is morally right IS
morally right for that society, what proportion of the society would have to
feel that mercy killing is acceptable before it became morally right for
that society? 100 percent? 90 percent? 75 percent? At what percent would it
BECOME morally acceptable?. If the society required say 95 percent
acceptance before a belief became morally acceptable, would it still be
immoral if only 90 percent of the public accepted the belief? There's a
certain aura of the ridiculous that pervades any situation in which a mere
preponderance of belief is used to determine a truth.
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> Out of consideration and respect for some of the controversy that has arisen
> over the term "Moral Relativism," I would like to make some further remarks
> on the subject. I do this not so much in an attempt to refute any
> particular view expressed in the group, as I do as a way of clearing up
> whatever misconceptions I may have caused with respect to the issue, and as
> a way of at least making my own position on the subject as clear as
> possible.
>
> To begin, I offer a few standard definitions that will serve at least as MY
> understanding of the various forms of relativism as it relates to ethical
> issues.
>
> Moral Positivism: the view that what makes moral standards right is that
> they are the ones actually adopted (by a society, by an authority). The
> label is infrequently used, but theories of this kind are not uncommon.
> Moral positivism of the sociological variety is relativist and rules out any
> moral challenge to an established social morality.
> ---Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, Penguin Books, 2000.
Interesting. Similar to legal positivism except the adopted
norms are not made laws or enforced through the legal system, I
assume?
> Cultural Relativism: This term is used for at least two different views.
> The first is uncontroversial, the second is not: (1) different cultures have
> different customs, social institutions, moralities, etc.;
That seems more like an empirical fact that an ethical
perspective. An "is" statement rather than an "ought" statement.
Interesting. I'm thinking of the old international relations
school of thought called "Political Realism," where Hans
Morgenthau (among others) argued that states have objective
national interests which they should pursue. Those interests
were defined as power, since states exist in an anarchy, and an
anarchy implies a "self help" system. If all states pursue
power, that can create a balance of power. One of his rules of
Political Realism was that states should not consider their moral
or legal system better than that of any other, that states should
respect the internal sovereignty of other states. It was very
relativist, a weak point in his theory (though he revised the
strong relativist wording I think after the fifth or sixth
edition of his work, keeping the main point -- he argued power is
what mattered and ideological conflict only keeps states from
noticing that.)
So he had an objectivist notion of how STATES should act in their
situation (anarchy), and what states should not do (judge their
system morally superior to other systems) since that would keep
them from recognizing that power is their true objective
interest. He argued that understanding that interest correctly
would lead states to recognize a stable balance of power system
was best, and states wanting to threaten it were dangerous and
needed to be stopped.
BTW, Wendt has argued that this kind of approach is really a
"Lockean" logic of anarchy, since it gives states certain rights
of life (right to exist), liberty (sovereignty) and property
(territory), and that there are rules whereby states can interact
respecting those rights, but when they try to violate the rights
of other states then it goes against the norms of the system. If
it were a "Hobbesian" logic, it would be a war of all against
all, and the world would be chaotic -- anarchies can have
different logic. Wendt talks also about the possibility of a
Kantian system, where states would value cooperation and
friendship as a norm, with action taken not just for
self-interest but the common interest. (Multilateralism,
cooperative institution building -- as a norm, not just to pursue
national self-interest).
Well stated, sorry if my bit above was distracting...
To me I'd think of the issues above in terms of the following:
when am I justified in violating the norms of a society, when am
I justified in trying to alter those norms, and what means should
I use for my efforts. I think one can approach those questions
without having to have already developed a moral code that is
proven superior to those of existing cultures.
cheers, scott
Cephalus
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
-snip-
>
>Cultural Relativism: This term is used for at least two different views.
>The first is uncontroversial, the second is not: (1) different cultures have
>different customs, social institutions, moralities, etc.; (2) the view that
>those who belong to one culture cannot form a valid judgement of any
>custom, institution, belief, etc. which is part of a culture which differs
>significantly from their own. The view that there is no non-relative
>(absolute) basis from which to judge, and that proper judgements can only be
>made from inside, i.e. from the standpoint of the culture judged.
>---Ibid.
Even the first, actually, is a contentious view. While it is
certainly true that different cultures have some differences
(otherwise they would literally be the same culture), it is not the
case that there is nothing that is universal accross all cultures.
One such thing that should generally be accepted as common to all
cultures is language, for instance. That ethical terms exist in any
culture is almost surely true. That some normative structure exists
either through customs or formal institutions is universal.
In fact, this kind of analysis just barely scratches the surface as it
turns out. There are a great many popular myths promulgated even by
individuals degreed in anthropology or sociobiology. The most famous
of these are at least highly contentious if not basically debunked
myths about language such as that eskimos have more words for snow
than westerners or that apes have the capacity for language.
-snip-
Gandalf Grey
Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
news:3c486dee...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:09:13 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> >
> >Cultural Relativism: This term is used for at least two different views.
> >The first is uncontroversial, the second is not: (1) different cultures
have
> >different customs, social institutions, moralities, etc.; (2) the view
that
> >those who belong to one culture cannot form a valid judgement of any
> >custom, institution, belief, etc. which is part of a culture which
differs
> >significantly from their own. The view that there is no non-relative
> >(absolute) basis from which to judge, and that proper judgements can only
be
> >made from inside, i.e. from the standpoint of the culture judged.
> >---Ibid.
>
> Even the first, actually, is a contentious view. While it is
> certainly true that different cultures have some differences
> (otherwise they would literally be the same culture), it is not the
> case that there is nothing that is universal accross all cultures.
There is nothing contained in (1), as stated, that suggests that there is or
could be 'nothing' universal across all cultures. Since this is the case,
in what way is it contentious?
If it is not, it seems not to connect with your comments on cultural myths.
Also, you failed to support your remark on language and 'apes.' Nor could
you, past a point. There are ongoing arguments on both sides of that issue,
and enough continued controversy to militate against putting the matter into
the same category as 'babies in the microwave' urban legends and cultural
myths.
Keynes
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
There is no doubt that apes can use american sign language
to communicate their thoughts and desires and even their emotions.
Koko the gorilla expressed 'love' for her kitten, and 'sadness'
when the kitten died. Some chimps have taught other chimps
to communicate in ASLAN. Apes may lack the ability to communicate
in conditional or future tenses, but this could be a flaw in ASLAN.
(Many people communicate verbally almost exclusively in the present tense.)
Some public figures have problems with vocabulary and tense, as well as
agreements in noun verb combinations. Some of these folks cannot form
complete sentences. There is hope that science can prove that these
public officials are actually capable of a limited form of speech.
More research must be done before I will believe it myself.
Cephalus
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
I see, (1) just says that different cultures are different. I doubt
it. There would hardly be a term for it if that were the case.
Cultural relativism is the view that the characteristics that make up
a culture are completely optional. If that is not what cultural
relativism refers to at a minimum, then the term is meaningless.
>
>If it is not, it seems not to connect with your comments on cultural myths.
>
>Also, you failed to support your remark on language and 'apes.' Nor could
>you, past a point. There are ongoing arguments on both sides of that issue,
>and enough continued controversy to militate against putting the matter into
>the same category as 'babies in the microwave' urban legends and cultural
>myths.
I did not fail to support it since that would imply I tried. I don't
really have to. Almost no one (that knows what they are talking
about) thinks that apes have the capacity for language. If they did
they certainly wouldn't need us to teach one to them since they would
already be using one.
As to babies and microwaves, I really don't know what you are talking
about. If you want an argument or proof that apes don't have the
capacity for language, then just survey what linguists seem to think
on the matter. I would even say that it wouldn't surprise me if there
wasn't a single linguist that thinks that apes have the capcity for
language. I know of at least one introductory text that specifically
takes the time out to debunk this myth.
Cephalus
with a certain hand gesture or noise that is familiar to us only shows
that they are sufficiently like us to emulate us that closely. And
that is the most charitable response to these "findings".
Their scientific method and just how true what you are saying is is
equally disputed.
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 02:41:45 -0600, Keynes <Key...@spam.newsguy.com>
wrote:
Scott D. Erb
Cephalus wrote:
>
> That apes can be trained is not impressive. That apes "communicate"
> with a certain hand gesture or noise that is familiar to us only shows
> that they are sufficiently like us to emulate us that closely. And
> that is the most charitable response to these "findings".
>
> Their scientific method and just how true what you are saying is is
> equally disputed.
I think you're wrong there, the results I've read especially with
Koko, are pretty impressive.
Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
Gandalf Grey
Cultural Relativism is not an exhaustively descriptive definition and I
wonder why you would try to suggest that it is. It holds that different
cultures have different moral codes that often conflict with other cultures.
It is a descriptive rather than a directive point of view.
>
> >
> >If it is not, it seems not to connect with your comments on cultural
myths.
> >
> >Also, you failed to support your remark on language and 'apes.' Nor
could
> >you, past a point. There are ongoing arguments on both sides of that
issue,
> >and enough continued controversy to militate against putting the matter
into
> >the same category as 'babies in the microwave' urban legends and cultural
> >myths.
>
> I did not fail to support it since that would imply I tried. I don't
> really have to.
Well, yes you really do if you want it to pass is off as something more than
a blatantly unsupported assertion.
> Almost no one (that knows what they are talking
> about) thinks that apes have the capacity for language.
I had wondered when you would begin to the employ the 'everyone [who knows
what they're talking about]' argument. Does that sort of argument impress
you? It's never held a lot of weight with me. How will we determine who
"knows what they are talking about"? Is it based entirely on degree? Where
they got the degree? Is it consenses? When does it become a matter of
'everyone?' 60% agreement, 75%? 90%?
> If they did
> they certainly wouldn't need us to teach one to them since they would
> already be using one.
That doesn't follow logically or practically. You're trying to conflate
capacity and ability.
>
> As to babies and microwaves, I really don't know what you are talking
> about. If you want an argument or proof that apes don't have the
> capacity for language, then just survey what linguists seem to think
> on the matter.
And you'll find arguments on both sides. Further, your argument assumes
that lingists are the only possible authorities on the issue. That also
does not follow.
Keynes
>That apes can be trained is not impressive. That apes "communicate"
>with a certain hand gesture or noise that is familiar to us only shows
>that they are sufficiently like us to emulate us that closely. And
>that is the most charitable response to these "findings".
>
Who, besides Hellen Keller, learned language any other way?
>Their scientific method and just how true what you are saying is is
>equally disputed.
>
Apes are not up to the human average.
However these apes are well above sub normal humans.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
>the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
>in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
It's because the last time I spoke to an ape about a 220VAC power
distribution problem I was having, the damned thing had nothing say,
so I figured it was useless.
Let me know when you run across an ape that can lend a hand.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
> >the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
> >in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
>
> It's because the last time I spoke to an ape about a 220VAC power
> distribution problem I was having, the damned thing had nothing say,
> so I figured it was useless.
>
> Let me know when you run across an ape that can lend a hand.
Of course, that is a wholly irrational response which has nothing
to do with the question asked.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C4A2A53...@worldnet.att.net...
But then, it's the only kind of response that Junior has to give.
Gandalf Grey
Becky, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c4a1ec5...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
> >the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
> >in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
>
> It's because the last time I spoke to an ape about a 220VAC power
> distribution problem I was having, the damned thing had nothing say,
> so I figured it was useless.
Maybe Sabotta just didn't feel like talking that day.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C4A3F09...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> mongo78 wrote:
> >
> > Unless you can present to me an ape that can grasp the concepts
> > necessary to understand the technical (and, more importantly,
> > ethical) implications of Beck's 220V power supply, efforts to
> > establish communications with it's species are likely to be
> > unsuccessful.
> >
> > I think his answer went right to the heart of the question.
>
> Hardly. Here was the question:
>
> >> >Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
> >> >the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
> >> >in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
>
>
> ability to achieve it. A five year old can communicate.
Nope. Sorry, Scott. If the five year old can't counsel Beck on his 220V
power supply, he can't communicate. Although the scream of horror that most
five year olds would put out on seeing Beck would be enough to qualify as
communication by most theories.
Scott D. Erb
Well, gee, if that won't work, I guess they can just claim you
are someone you're not. Yeah, THAT'S a rational, logical
argument :)
johnz~
Sorry, Scotty. "Gandalf" is Hanson. Watch him shriek, watch him scream,
watch him threaten and lie.
But none of it does any good at all.
________________________________________________________________________
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
From pop_server."tiberias"@pop.sprynet.com Tue Jul 10 12:58:37 2001
Status: U
Return-Path: < ganda...@InfectedMail.com >
Received: from omta05.mta.everyone.net ([216.200.145.35]) by
hazard.mail.mindspring.net (Earthlink Mail Service) with ESMTP id
tkk1jd.npe.37kb01i for < tibe...@sprynet.com >; Mon, 9 Jul 2001
15:30:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sitemail.everyone.net (reports [216.200.145.62]) by
omta05.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE65D47E7C for <
tibe...@sprynet.com >; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by sitemail.everyone.net (Postfix, from userid 99) id
D28382744; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.117)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Hanson < ganda...@InfectedMail.com >
To: Kurt Nicklas < tibe...@sprynet.com >
Subject: Re: Hatespeech:The RH Nicklas Effect
Reply-to: ganda...@InfectedMail.com
X-Originating-Ip: [63.21.201.27]
Message-Id: <200107091930...@sitemail.everyone.net>
Content-Length: 2771
You have something to say, say it in group.
Anything else I get from you goes to your abuse group
________________________________________________________________________
Didn't you learn *anything* with Lochner, Scott?
JS
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
Gandalf Grey
It's the speciality of the totally marginalized. Like Sabotta and Beck.
They don't have arguments, just addresses to repost and lameass claims about
who their political 'enemies' REALLY are.
Pretty pathetic.
Gandalf Grey
johnz~ <johns...@removethishome.net> wrote in message
news:johnsabotta-0D55...@news.attbi.com...
> watch him threaten and lie.
Come and do something about it, you cringing coward.
citizen
"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c4a1ec5...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
> >the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
> >in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
>
> It's because the last time I spoke to an ape about a 220VAC power
> distribution problem I was having, the damned thing had nothing say,
> so I figured it was useless.
>
> Let me know when you run across an ape that can lend a hand.
I was here silently lucking trying to learn how to speak "lofty liberal
lingo" so I could ask a philosophical question!
Then you went and disturbed their train of thought.
Now I will never know why a piece of toast always seems to fall with the jam
side down:>))
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?
LET THEM TAKE ARMS"
- Thomas Jefferson -US Ambassador to France.
God Bless America!
Stew
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor1.html
http://www.civicsandpolitics.com/#Cool
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
http://www.sas-aim.org/
johnz~
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
The fact that you obsessively forge "Gandalf" over Hanson is really
proof enough, Hanson.
You're such a scared little creature, arn't you?
>
> Come and do something about it, you cringing coward.
>
Here's what you snipped:
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
--
Gandalf Grey
> proof enough, Gandalf.
>
> You're such a scared little creature, arn't you?
Aren't you in the car already and heading toward Oregon, you cringing
coward? When are you going to change your Huggies and put your money where
your mouth is?
One of these days, you're going to have to stop posting forged documents and
actually DO something about your big ideas, little man.
Oh, but that's right, you aren't going to do one damned thing about it,
because you're a gutless wonder whose only courage comes from hiding behind
a keyboard.
I'm laughing at you, Slob.
mhirtes
johnz~ wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, Scotty. "Gandalf" is Hanson. Watch him shriek, watch him scream,
> watch him threaten and lie.
Maybe you should accuse him of being a "trekkie", like you do to others.
Gandalf Grey
mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3C4A533A...@radiks.net...
Slobotta has sailed to the limits of marginalization and gone across the
border to the true nothingness he so richly deserves. Now he can spend the
rest of eternity pretending he knows other people's names while he shivers
in front of his keyboard.
It's his true calling.
Billy Beck
"citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
>> >the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
>> >in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
>>
>> It's because the last time I spoke to an ape about a 220VAC power
>> distribution problem I was having, the damned thing had nothing say,
>> so I figured it was useless.
>>
>> Let me know when you run across an ape that can lend a hand.
>
>I was here silently lucking trying to learn how to speak "lofty liberal
>lingo" so I could ask a philosophical question!
I figure that's a joke. If it's not, you'll discover the
absurdity of it with these idiots, soon enough.
>Now I will never know why a piece of toast always seems to fall with the jam
>side down:>))
That's easy: it's about gravity. The jam side is heavier. If it
has distance enough during the fall, events take their course to the
natural conclusion.
Gandalf Grey
Bill Beck, Junior <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c4a590e...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Bill Beck, Junior" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
> >>
> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
> >> >the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
> >> >in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
> >>
> >> It's because the last time I spoke to an ape about a 220VAC power
> >> distribution problem I was having, the damned thing had nothing say,
> >> so I figured it was useless.
> >>
> >> Let me know when you run across an ape that can lend a hand.
> >
> >I was here silently lucking trying to learn how to speak "lofty liberal
> >lingo" so I could ask a philosophical question!
>
> I figure that's a joke.
You're the joke, Junior.
johnz~
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
Why should I? You flee even when nobody pursueth, Hanson.
I'm not "Mondo Cane", after all.
>When are you going to change your Huggies and put your money where
> your mouth is?
>
> One of these days, you're going to have to stop posting forged documents and
> actually DO something about your big ideas, little man.
Posting your real name gets such a gratifying response, such a shrieking
outburst of fear and anger from you, Gandy - why would I want anything
more?
>
> Oh, but that's right, you aren't going to do one damned thing about it,
> because you're a gutless wonder whose only courage comes from hiding behind
> a keyboard.
I'm using my real name. I'm not hiding behind anything. You're the one
that's hiding, Hanson.
>
> I'm laughing at you, Slob.
You don't sound like you're laughing.
________________________________________________________________________
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
________________________________________________________________________
JS
johnz~
wrote:
Still upset, eh, Hirtes?
Sorry.
Gandalf Grey
>
> I'm not "Mondo Cane", after all.
You're not anybody, Slob. That's pretty much the point. You sit there
cowering in the dark of your basement, sending out your little taunts, but
you don't have the balls to back it up.
>
>
> >When are you going to change your Huggies and put your money where
> > your mouth is?
> >
> > One of these days, you're going to have to stop posting forged documents
and
> > actually DO something about your big ideas, little man.
>
> Posting your real name gets such a gratifying response
Post it someday and we'll see.
>, such a shrieking
> outburst of fear and anger from you, Gandy - why would I want anything
> more?
When exactly is that going to start, Slob? You're fun for some laughs,
especially pointing out that the only thing you can come up with anymore is
this kind of teenage 'real name' garbage, but fear? You need to get on over
here right away, Slob, and we can clear up the fear thing once and for all.
Of course until you get off your spineless little ass and actually do that,
you're just one more right wing coward in a news group that's full of them.
>
> >
> > Oh, but that's right, you aren't going to do one damned thing about it,
> > because you're a gutless wonder whose only courage comes from hiding
behind
> > a keyboard.
>
> I'm using my real name.
Real interesting. Get in your little car, and get on over here, Slob and
we'll have a nice short conversation about names.
Gandalf Grey
> In article <3C4A533A...@radiks.net>, mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net>
> wrote:
>
> > johnz~ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, Scotty. "Gandalf" is Hanson. Watch him shriek, watch him
scream,
> > > watch him threaten and lie.
> >
> > Maybe you should accuse him of being a "trekkie", like you do to others.
>
> Still upset, eh, Hirtes?
Yeah, Slob. You're so very upsetting to all of us. There's nothing quite
so terrifying as a spineless little moron like yourself posting pointless
barbs and baseless one-liner accusations, punctuated by.......what else is
it you do around here again, Slob? I forgot. Maybe it's because the only
thing you do around here is post pointless barbs and baseless one-liner
accusations.
Yeah. That must be it.
mhirtes
johnz~ wrote:
>
>
> Still upset, eh, Hirtes?
>
Still stupid, John-Boy?
--
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition
dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."-- Edward R. Murrow
"The danger of the past was that men became slaves. The danger of the
future is that man may become robots." -- Fromm
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be
done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality,
deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how
despiceable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than
be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under
the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." -- Albert Einstein
John H. McCloskey
Gandalf voodoo got you down? Try two donuts and a glass of wine.
--Internet Quack
Gandalf Grey
John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote in message
news:ueRKPB3cg2qQS1...@4ax.com...
> In <a2dkgc$bi0$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net> "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Communication doesn't require technical expertise,...
> >>
> >> That's right, but *human life* does
> >
> >Uh, no it doesn't, brainiac. Unless you want to accuse newborns of
> >technical expertise.
Plus, of course, it completely removes the question from the realm it
belonged to. Brain boy bounces from the foundational ability of
communication to discussing electric wiring as though they have ANYTHING to
do with one another. On that view, the Bushmen of Africa can't possibly
speak, nor do five-year olds, the educably mentally retarded, the clinically
insane, etc, etc.
You people are utter morons.
Cephalus
wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:11:27 GMT, ceph...@athens.org (Cephalus) wrote:
>
>>That apes can be trained is not impressive. That apes "communicate"
>>with a certain hand gesture or noise that is familiar to us only shows
>>that they are sufficiently like us to emulate us that closely. And
>>that is the most charitable response to these "findings".
>>
>Who, besides Hellen Keller, learned language any other way?
No one learned a particular language other than being taught the
rules. However, that is not the case with apes. Supposedly we are
introducing language in general to them.
>
>>Their scientific method and just how true what you are saying is is
>>equally disputed.
>>
>Apes are not up to the human average.
>However these apes are well above sub normal humans.
>
Actually that is precisely what is a myth. Subnormal humans can not
only communicate but also have the capacity for language. Apes do
not.
Cephalus
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>news:3c49464...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> I see, (1) just says that different cultures are different.
>
>Cultural Relativism is not an exhaustively descriptive definition and I
>wonder why you would try to suggest that it is. It holds that different
>cultures have different moral codes that often conflict with other cultures.
>It is a descriptive rather than a directive point of view.
>
As a description it still has to say *something*. Saying that
different cultures are different is not saying anything of substance.
What typically happens in this vein of reasoning is that the term
"cultural relativism" will be offered as a very basic indisputable
statement like "different cultures are different". At that stage in
the discussion it will require almost no justification. Then later on
it will be construed in its more meaningful sense (and what it is
really used to denote) as meaning that there are no universal cultural
traits.
>>
>> >
>> >If it is not, it seems not to connect with your comments on cultural
>myths.
>
>
>> >
>> >Also, you failed to support your remark on language and 'apes.' Nor
>could
>> >you, past a point. There are ongoing arguments on both sides of that
>issue,
>> >and enough continued controversy to militate against putting the matter
>into
>> >the same category as 'babies in the microwave' urban legends and cultural
>> >myths.
>>
>> I did not fail to support it since that would imply I tried. I don't
>> really have to.
>
>Well, yes you really do if you want it to pass is off as something more than
>a blatantly unsupported assertion.
>
Well, no I really don't -- any more than I have to support the
assertion that that the Earth is round.
>> Almost no one (that knows what they are talking
>> about) thinks that apes have the capacity for language.
>
>I had wondered when you would begin to the employ the 'everyone [who knows
>what they're talking about]' argument. Does that sort of argument impress
>you?
Give me a break. Go look it up. I am telling you to look in an intro
to linguistics text book. I am not saying that mr. so and so -- the
leading expert on a highly contentious point says so. I am telling
you that the linguists almost universally agree.
If you think that is an inappropriate apeal to authority, you're an
idiot. YOU better have a damn good reason for going against the
authorities at that point.
>It's never held a lot of weight with me. How will we determine who
>"knows what they are talking about"?
Oh, gee, I don't know -- by the fact that they are a professional
linguist?
> Is it based entirely on degree? Where
>they got the degree? Is it consenses? When does it become a matter of
>'everyone?' 60% agreement, 75%? 90%?
Well in this case, how about when it starts showing up in introductory
textbooks on linguistics as a popular myth?
>
>> If they did
>> they certainly wouldn't need us to teach one to them since they would
>> already be using one.
>
>That doesn't follow logically or practically. You're trying to conflate
>capacity and ability.
>
No -- I'm not conflating the two at all. I am saying that if they had
the capacity, they would have almost surely developed the ability.
Otherwise, it would be like birds never flying -- not because they
don't have wings -- but because no one ever introduced flight to them.
>>
>> As to babies and microwaves, I really don't know what you are talking
>> about. If you want an argument or proof that apes don't have the
>> capacity for language, then just survey what linguists seem to think
>> on the matter.
>
>And you'll find arguments on both sides. Further, your argument assumes
>that lingists are the only possible authorities on the issue. That also
>does not follow.
Yeah it does. Who else would know what is or is not language and when
someone is using a code or can use the language?
It is basically a well established fact. You just have to go look it
up. The so called "experts" you would invoke are basically just
ignorant about both the scientific method and what constitutes
langauge.
Scott D. Erb
I don't believe you, but the point still stands. Who he is
doesn't matter, there are people who post anonymously all the
time. It is utterly irrational to respond to arguments just by
claiming someone is a particular person. Idiotic, in fact.
Cephalus
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Cephalus wrote:
>>
>> That apes can be trained is not impressive. That apes "communicate"
>> with a certain hand gesture or noise that is familiar to us only shows
>> that they are sufficiently like us to emulate us that closely. And
>> that is the most charitable response to these "findings".
>>
>> Their scientific method and just how true what you are saying is is
>> equally disputed.
>
>I think you're wrong there, the results I've read especially with
>Koko, are pretty impressive.
>
Here is an exceprt from "Animal Communication: How Nim Chimpsky
Changed My Mind" by Herbert Terrace, in a book entitled _The Language
Files_ which was put together by the Ohio State University Department
of Linguistics:
"If these claims are valid, I might agree with Penny Patterson of
Stanford University, whos experience in teaching sign language to a
gorilla named Koko led her to declare that 'language is no longer the
exclusive domain of man.' After a five-year research project of my
own, however, I am skeptical about such pronouncements. When I began
my study with a male chimp called Nim Chimpsky, I hoped to demostrate
that apes can, ineed, form sentences. I wanted to go beyond the
anecdotal evidence reported by other studies and show that grammatical
rules are needed to describe many of an ape's utterances.
"Initially, the regularities I observed in thousands of Nim's
communication in sign language suggest that he was, in fact, using a
grammar. However, after analyzing videotapes of his "conversations"
with his teachers, I discovered that the sequences of words that
looked like sentences were subtle imitations of the teacher's
sequences. I could find no evidence confirming an ape's grammatical
comeptence, either in my own data or those of others, that could not
be explained by similar processes."
...
"In their first efforts to determine whether chimpanzees have similar
capabilities, researchers quickly dicovered that the chimps could not
reproduce spoken language. These failures might be explained by
anatomical limitations of the chimpanzee's vocal tract: it is
incapable of producing the broad range of sounds that constitute
spoken human language. That is one reason why experimenters attempted
to teach them visual languages such as Yerkish and ASL.
"Washoe, Sarah, and Lana each acquired vocabularies of more than 100
words in their respective languages. Their trainers interpretted
these words as they would corresponding words in human languages:
names of people, objects, actions, attributes, and various
relationships. In more recent studies, other apes have acquired
similar vocabularies. Penny Patterson recently reported that Koko has
acquired a vocabulary of more than 400 signs.
"The words learned by each of these apes were sybolically arbitrary,
in the sense that it was not generally possible to infer their
meanings from their form. In Sarah's language, for example, the word
'apple' is a nonsense geometric form on a red background. In ASL,
'apple' is made by pressing the knuckle of the index finger into the
cheek and twisting forward."
...
"Given that apes have been observed to produce sequences such as
'Washoe more eat, water bird, Mary give Sarah apple, please machine
give Lana apple', it is natural to ask wether such sequences were
generated by a grammar."
...
>Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
>the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
>in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
It isn't *that* hard to believe, or else not very many academicians
would be duped by it. But from the citation above from a Ling 101
textbook, it should at least be clear why it is far from having been
deomstrated. More likely, all this "apes can sign" business is is
long winded apologetics for an unlikely result that upon careful
examination turns out to be ridiculous.
Koko's signs are little more than a bird's song vocabulary. While
this might show that apes are smarter than some other animals, it
certainly doesn't show that they are even as smart as a human baby,
for instance, or as another poster says "subnormal humans" both of
which can learn language.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:23:31 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >news:3c49464...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:19:26 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:3c486dee...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:09:13 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> >> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >
> >Cultural Relativism is not an exhaustively descriptive definition and I
> >wonder why you would try to suggest that it is. It holds that different
> >cultures have different moral codes that often conflict with other
cultures.
> >It is a descriptive rather than a directive point of view.
> >
>
> As a description it still has to say *something*. Saying that
> different cultures are different is not saying anything of substance.
> What typically happens in this vein of reasoning is that the term
> "cultural relativism" will be offered as a very basic indisputable
> statement like "different cultures are different". At that stage in
> the discussion it will require almost no justification. Then later on
> it will be construed in its more meaningful sense (and what it is
> really used to denote) as meaning that there are no universal cultural
> traits.
Garbage. Try to deal with definitions for what they say rather than what
YOU think their intent is. Demonstrate that it's being used in that sense
and for that purpose or move on.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >If it is not, it seems not to connect with your comments on cultural
> >myths.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >Also, you failed to support your remark on language and 'apes.' Nor
> >could
> >> >you, past a point. There are ongoing arguments on both sides of that
> >issue,
> >> >and enough continued controversy to militate against putting the
matter
> >into
> >> >the same category as 'babies in the microwave' urban legends and
cultural
> >> >myths.
> >>
> >> I did not fail to support it since that would imply I tried. I don't
> >> really have to.
> >
> >Well, yes you really do if you want it to pass is off as something more
than
> >a blatantly unsupported assertion.
> >
>
> Well, no I really don't -- any more than I have to support the
> assertion that that the Earth is round.
Or that the Earth is flat, which is really more like the kind of assertion
you're making. See, it's all of a piece. If you want to make ignorant
statements which you leave unsupported, that's fine, but the rest of the
world can be excused for believing that you're being ignorant when you make
those statements.
>
> >> Almost no one (that knows what they are talking
> >> about) thinks that apes have the capacity for language.
> >
> >I had wondered when you would begin to the employ the 'everyone [who
knows
> >what they're talking about]' argument. Does that sort of argument
impress
> >you?
>
> Give me a break.
That's not my job. If you want a break, speak sensibly.
> Go look it up. I am telling you to look in an intro
> to linguistics text book. I am not saying that mr. so and so -- the
> leading expert on a highly contentious point says so. I am telling
> you that the linguists almost universally agree.
I doubt that the linguists will end up being the last word on a subject like
this, especially considering how spectacularly unsuccessful that field has
been, but I'm sure that they felt the need to weigh in
> If you think that is an inappropriate apeal to authority, you're an
> idiot. YOU better have a damn good reason for going against the
> authorities at that point.
Oh garbage. You can't even present their reasons. That's why you're
appealing to them in the first place. It's a typical appeal to authority,
made on the basis of not having a decent argument of your own.
>
> >It's never held a lot of weight with me. How will we determine who
> >"knows what they are talking about"?
>
> Oh, gee, I don't know -- by the fact that they are a professional
> linguist?
Which gives them the keys to the universe, eh?
>
> > Is it based entirely on degree? Where
> >they got the degree? Is it consenses? When does it become a matter of
> >'everyone?' 60% agreement, 75%? 90%?
>
> Well in this case, how about when it starts showing up in introductory
> textbooks on linguistics as a popular myth?
You really don't get the point at all do you? No problem. Stick with your
introductions to the subject. We don't generally expect the student to
start thinking for themselves until the third year.
>
> >
> >> If they did
> >> they certainly wouldn't need us to teach one to them since they would
> >> already be using one.
> >
> >That doesn't follow logically or practically. You're trying to conflate
> >capacity and ability.
> >
>
> No -- I'm not conflating the two at all. I am saying that if they had
> the capacity, they would have almost surely developed the ability.
Garbage. Do you honestly think it's like electric lighting? If you have
it, you just flip the switch? Please. A little less linguistics, a little
more evolutionary biology.
> Otherwise, it would be like birds never flying -- not because they
> don't have wings -- but because no one ever introduced flight to them.
Ya think they just woke up with wings one day and ran out of the nest to
taxi off onto the runway, eh?
>
> >>
> >> As to babies and microwaves, I really don't know what you are talking
> >> about. If you want an argument or proof that apes don't have the
> >> capacity for language, then just survey what linguists seem to think
> >> on the matter.
> >
> >And you'll find arguments on both sides. Further, your argument assumes
> >that lingists are the only possible authorities on the issue. That also
> >does not follow.
>
> Yeah it does. Who else would know what is or is not language and when
> someone is using a code or can use the language?
The people who wrote the first real arguments against communication in apes:
Psychologists. Thanks for proving that you really don't know the history of
this subject or what the hell you're talking about.
>
> It is basically a well established fact.
No, it's not.
> You just have to go look it
> up.
Considering the fact that you don't even know where the original arguments
against ape communication abilities came from, it's pretty apparent that a
few hours of research on this subject would be in order if you intend to
ever know anything about it.
> The so called "experts" you would invoke are basically just
> ignorant about both the scientific method
Right. Those would be the Evolutionary biologists, behaviorists,
primatologists, and the other linguists who don't agree with the
introductory chapter of your first year linguistics text. You know, the
sciences that were using the scientific method before linguistics was
linguistics.
We used to have a saying in my department at the University. By the time
you reach your last year, you need to be able to demonstrate why everything
you learned in your first year is wrong.
Stop pretending that science is written in stone, drop your urge to
pigeon-hole reality, and wake up to the near infinity of what you don't
know.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:46:00 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Cephalus wrote:
> >>
> >> That apes can be trained is not impressive. That apes "communicate"
> >> with a certain hand gesture or noise that is familiar to us only shows
> >> that they are sufficiently like us to emulate us that closely. And
> >> that is the most charitable response to these "findings".
> >>
> >> Their scientific method and just how true what you are saying is is
> >> equally disputed.
> >
> >I think you're wrong there, the results I've read especially with
> >Koko, are pretty impressive.
> >
>
> Here is an exceprt from "Animal Communication: How Nim Chimpsky
> Changed My Mind" by Herbert Terrace, in a book entitled _The Language
> Files_ which was put together by the Ohio State University Department
> of Linguistics:
Old news.
Many anthopologists, psychologists, primatologists, evolutionary biologists,
and other scientists disagree. Linguistics begins with an assumption that
nothing but human beings can utilize language. It's a self-fulfilling
prophesy that makes it possible for them to discard any and all evidence to
the contrary. All of this results from Linguistics deciding that primate
communication ought to be a turf war.
Of course, the reality is that the facts are by no means in on this
controversy. While the linguists are using semantic tricks to define away
any chance of their domain being threatened by a widening view of language,
other scientists are pursuing research that continues to make the linguistic
'truism' concerning primate language very unlikely.
Some interesting sites on this issue:
http://whyfiles.org/058language/ape_talk.html
http://www.gsu.edu/webprj01/cas/wwwjjp/public_html/depart/faculty/srumbaugh.
htm
Sue Savage-Rumbaugh's site. Two important books on the subject:
Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind, Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Roger
Lewin, 1995, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Also, Apes, Language and the Human Mind. See Amazon.com for a review on
this important current book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195109864/ref=ase_inktomi-bkasin-20/
002-2614264-2413638
Also, see:
Miles, H. L. (1983) Apes and language: The search for communicative
competence. In Language in Primates: Perspectives and Implications, J. De
Luce & H. T. Wilder (eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York. pp 43-61.
Also,
'Language' and Intelligence in Monkeys and Apes
Comparative Developmental Perspectives
Edited by Sue Taylor Parker, Kathleen Rita Gibson
1994, ISBN: 0521459699
"This is the first collection of articles completely and explicitly devoted
to the new field of 'comparative developmental evolutionary psychology' -
that is, to studies of primate abilities based on frameworks drawn from
developmental psychology and evolutionary biology. These frameworks include
Piagetian and neo-Piagetian models as well as psycholinguistic ones."
An interesting article on using LEGAL testimony from language gifted apes
can be found at http://www.law.umich.edu/thayer/mccape.htm
Also see:
http://www.yorku.ca/ycom/release/archive/080498.htm
"YORK UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR'S BOOK PROVES APES CAPABLE OF LANGUAGE, NOT JUST
MIMICRY
Research May Provide Insight Into Children With Autism, Challenges Language
Theory
TORONTO, August 4, 1998 -- York University professor Stuart Shanker is
attracting world wide attention for his ground-breaking, controversial book
that proves apes can develop the same language capability as a human child."
______________
The point of all of this is that the jury is still out on the question of
primates and language. Linguists have chosen to use a dogma to avoid
answering this question. That dogma is that only human beings can use
language. We've talked about Tautological Definitions in this very thread
and why they don't work.
The effective result of that stance is that linguists have effectively
sidelined themselves concerning this question. That's unfortunate, but it
wont be the first time that a 'science' has decided to voluntarily
marginalize itself by treating a genuine scientific question as a turf war.
It's too damned bad. There's nothing more embarrasing than watching fussy
little academics sabotaging real research out of jealosy and a fear that
their precious little turf might get stepped on.
Gandalf Grey
You see it most in people like Sabotta and Beck who hardly post at all.
It's a kind of substitute for having something to say. When Beck's not
pretending he's just about ready to say something profound, he's reposting
Gary's address. All of that is nothing more than something to take the
place of a rational response, because for thugs like Beck and Sabotta, this
group was never about anything but personal threats, and that's a fact that
goes back as far as the archives reach. That seems to be part of it, at
least. But there's also that conspiratorial feeling on this group. Beck,
McPhillips, Sabotta are all into the conspiratorial, Dick Nixon,
commie-hunter mentality. McPhillips and Beck are both into reposting
private addresses from way back according to a couple of articles I found on
Google. Then, of course, that kind of behavior leads to more people feeling
that they NEED to keep their real names private, which leads to taunts from
the Beckians and it goes on and on.
It's incredibly pathological.
Dana
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:29:35 -0600, Keynes <Key...@spam.newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:11:27 GMT, ceph...@athens.org (Cephalus) wrote:
> >
> >>That apes can be trained is not impressive. That apes "communicate"
> >>with a certain hand gesture or noise that is familiar to us only shows
> >>that they are sufficiently like us to emulate us that closely. And
> >>that is the most charitable response to these "findings".
> >>
> >Who, besides Hellen Keller, learned language any other way?
>
> No one learned a particular language other than being taught the
> rules. However, that is not the case with apes. Supposedly we are
> introducing language in general to them.
>
> >
> >>Their scientific method and just how true what you are saying is is
> >>equally disputed.
> >>
> >Apes are not up to the human average.
> >However these apes are well above sub normal humans.
> >
>
> Actually that is precisely what is a myth. Subnormal humans can not
> only communicate but also have the capacity for language. Apes do
> not.
Another Chomsky, who thinks only man has the ability to use Language.
Hate to bust your bubble, but back in 98 researchers found out that Apes can
use language.
http://www.yorku.ca/ycom/release/archive/080498.htm
According to the authors, Kanzi and other bonobos can understand simple
grammatical structures containing subject, object, and verb. They can also
understand word order or syntax and what we call inflectional endings, like
ing, ed, or s.
johnz~
I am so puzzled, Mr. McCloskey! All I want is peace, love, understanding
and respect (PLUR) for all the peoples of the world, and here our wizard
is getting all upset and mad and demanding I come down to Portland and
fight him or something! All this violence and bad feeling!
Have I done something wrong? Even Scott Erb - that moral beacon whose
judgement I respect above all others - now semi-condemns me in
almost-harsh language!
What have I done?
JS
"What is your position in the world of letters?"
"Jolly good view from up here."
- from an interview with Guess Who
http://kulichki-win.rambler.ru/moshkow/NABOKOW/Inter17.txt
"I'm utterly appalled by their tyranny." - Maciste
PS: The two donuts are always a good idea, but the glass of wine should
be withheld judiciously if feeding lung. The Adorable One is actually
immune to the effects of drugs and alcohol, being undifferentiated and
completely solid (where all those donuts, etc, actually *go* is a
complete mystery - some have suggested an alternate universe) but such
is lung's puckish nature that she will pretend to feel what she thinks
is intoxication. Thus, if you pour a glass of wine down lung's adorable
maw, she will start to act "drunk" and will run around for a while like
a mad little thing, saying "drunken lung, drunken lung" and pretending
to reel and stumble. This can be somewhat unsettling, even if it is all
just playacting.
Gandalf Grey
johnz~ wrote:
"Drop dead, Litvinchouk. Seriously. That's the libertarian response to
your "proposal", you pea-brained goddamned cocksucker."
"How about SHOOTING statist assholes who want more taxes in the face, and
SHOOTING them and SHOOTING them and SHOOTING them until "those
monstrosities will be EXTINCT by 2010?"
johnz~
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
It's all metaphor. Or something.
Actually, I seek to understand violence in a deeper, more profound
fashion, so I can more effectively deplore it. How can I fully deplore
the notion of shooting statist assholes in the face unless I fully
experience (metaphorically) the totality of what that means? Would this
not be base hypocrisy? The struggle against violence and incivility
demands many sacrifices of this sort. (Erb would understand) But it's
all for the sake of peace, love, understanding and respect.
Really. It is.
And now for another item:
________________________________________________________________________
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
________________________________________________________________________
and, yet another...
________________________________________________________________________
(from a "Gandalf Grey" post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=97f7ao%248m8%241%40slb5.atl.mi
ndspring.net&rnum=12)
"I note your apostolic nature as well. If you want to play a game with
this, go right ahead.
I'll prosecute any invasion of my privacy or any threat made against me
to fullest extent that the law allows.
And I'm not kidding.
This will be my last comment on the issue. Consider yourself warned."
________________________________________________________________________
Boy, I'm really worried now, Hanson.
I've been "warned"
(snicker)
"Le cose non si possono risolvere con la non violenza,
la non violenza permette ai più forti di dormire, la violenza
ci vuole, io amo la violenza, sono un apostolo della violenza..."
(Jacopetti, 1968)
PLUR,
JS
Gandalf Grey
It's all crap.
A valid metaphor for your life.
Keynes
Human anatomy is different than other mammals.
Our windpipe is in a dangerous place, so we suffer
more chance of choking. They say that neanderthal
man probably had a different windpipe and could not
form 'human' speech. AFAIK only some birds can
mimic speech.
The human brain has a specific well
developed area for speech. We are gifted. There
is also some evidence that 'grammar' is innate in
the human brain. No ape will ever deliver a speech
like "Make the pie higher."
This is not to say that animals don't communicate.
Even fish communicate. Most animals use body
language and scents more than articulated sounds.
Vocal speech is 'unique' to humans. Apes have been
taught to talk to us in sign language and we refuse to listen,
we are so proud, but that doesn't make us look that much
more intelligent. Nobody has bothered to learn the
language of the apes or the whales. We don't
appear near smart enough.
Scott D. Erb
studies, showing skepticism of past work, but at the same time
keeping an open mind. That's the thing about an issue like this
-- it defies simple analysis, and chimps might behave differently
from apes, etc. It also in each case requires interpretation and
understanding from the analyst.
Also, the idea of using a particular grammar here, we're left
with an uncertain conclusion about what it means, but clearly
there is evidence that apes can communicate with humans and
express their emotions and thoughts in ways we can understand.
How well they do it and how different it is than other species
will require a lot more research to determine.
johnz~
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
Oops! Looks like you accidentally snipped out most of my previous post -
that is, the parts that made you feel all uncomfortable and afraid.
Even though you're such a snivelling little coward, Hanson, I'll have to
repeat it all yet again:
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C4B40AD...@worldnet.att.net...
> That hardly settles the issue, it shows that scientists are doing
> studies, showing skepticism of past work, but at the same time
> keeping an open mind.
THAT'S the issue here. Linguistics closed its mind long ago. It's a turf
war. You and I were talking about that previously. There's nothing quite
as vicious as an academic turf war, precisely because there's so little at
stake. The evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, primatologists and
psychologists say "hey! Maybe we've discovered something about language."
The linguists say "You CAN'T. That's OUR turf!!!!"
Gandalf Grey
> In article <a2fduh$c1c$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> Oops! Looks like you accidentally snipped out most of my previous post -
> that is, the parts that made you feel all uncomfortable and afraid.
You don't generate posts, Slob. Just graffitti.
Bear Bottoms
fuzzy inside. Look Billy Beck square in the face and see what
is there that you deplore. He posts proudly that he would kill
humans over things and sleep like a baby. That is as cold as it
gets. I don't think peace, love, and understanding has anything
to do with it. That is what you are dealing with.
Cephalus
What?!? You do reaize you could do this with anything. "Physics
begins with the assumption that...." There is nothing in the
definition of language that requires that only humans can have it.
What does it take?
>Of course, the reality is that the facts are by no means in on this
>controversy. While the linguists are using semantic tricks to define away
>any chance of their domain being threatened by a widening view of language,
>other scientists are pursuing research that continues to make the linguistic
>'truism' concerning primate language very unlikely.
>
Like what?!?
Dogma?!? Where? What dogma? You really don't know anything about
what you are talking about.
>
>The effective result of that stance is that linguists have effectively
>sidelined themselves concerning this question. That's unfortunate, but it
>wont be the first time that a 'science' has decided to voluntarily
>marginalize itself by treating a genuine scientific question as a turf war.
>
That is what is going to happen to "evolutionary biology". At best
you have shown that these other pseudosciences are just that --
pseudosciences.
>It's too damned bad. There's nothing more embarrasing than watching fussy
>little academics sabotaging real research out of jealosy and a fear that
>their precious little turf might get stepped on.
>
No shit! Real research allows for peer review and doesn't threaten
their critics with law-suits as in the case with the Herbert Terrace.
I see. I get unequivocal expert input and you guys still refuse to
admit you are wrong.
Cephalus
linguistics textbook. It is as much of a refutation of the hypothesis
that apes have the capacity for language as you can get. It even
specifically mentions Koko.
Face it, the "Apes can talk" experiments are just pseudoscience and
mythology.
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 22:04:45 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
Cephalus
physicists have shown that you can square the circle!
Gandalf Grey
>
> I see. I get unequivocal expert input and you guys still refuse to
> admit you are wrong.
There's nothing "unequivical" about "expert input."
You need to grow up.
Gandalf Grey
> What?!? I guess you just don't get it. This is out of an intro to
> linguistics textbook. It is as much of a refutation of the hypothesis
> that apes have the capacity for language as you can get. It even
> specifically mentions Koko.
Wow! I guess if it mentions Koko, it's got to be right!
LOL!
The debate goes on regardless of the introduction in your Linguistics
handbook.
Cephalus
wrote:
Right. That's not the issue here.
>
>The human brain has a specific well
>developed area for speech. We are gifted. There
>is also some evidence that 'grammar' is innate in
>the human brain. No ape will ever deliver a speech
>like "Make the pie higher."
>
That is precisely the issue. If you cannot form sentences using a
grammar, then how are you different from a parrot with a large
vocabulary.
>This is not to say that animals don't communicate.
>Even fish communicate. Most animals use body
>language and scents more than articulated sounds.
>Vocal speech is 'unique' to humans. Apes have been
>taught to talk to us in sign language and we refuse to listen,
>we are so proud, but that doesn't make us look that much
>more intelligent. Nobody has bothered to learn the
>language of the apes or the whales. We don't
>appear near smart enough.
What?!? Refuse to listen? Are you nuts? They only sign at us when
we prompt them and after extensive training. We look for all variety
of meaning in their gestures and claim that animals use language.
Linguistics would be expanded by such a conclusion not diminished by
it. If whales had language think of the funding linguists would get!
"We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this issue.
Gandalf Grey
>
> "We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
> contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this issue.
It takes even greater arrogance to believe that a few 'unequivocal'
statements by linguistics professors are going to lay an issue to rest when
several other physical and social sciences completely disagree.
But it also takes real immaturity and a real lack of experience in education
to believe that something being in an introductory chapter of a textbook
lays an issue to rest or represents the last word on the subject.
johnz~
"Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@home.com> wrote:
You forgot this part:
Scott D. Erb
Cephalus wrote:
>
> What?!? I guess you just don't get it. This is out of an intro to
> linguistics textbook. It is as much of a refutation of the hypothesis
> that apes have the capacity for language as you can get. It even
> specifically mentions Koko.
> Face it, the "Apes can talk" experiments are just pseudoscience and
> mythology.
You don't get it, you're not quoting any test that falsified an
hypothesis or was even able to make judgements. To read what you
claim above from the bit you posted is simply wrong. Also, I did
not say "apes can talk." Your attempt to shift the claim suggests
you know that your original statement was misguided. Here is
what I noted:
The experiments, including ones with Koko and other primates,
suggest strongly that communication between species is possible.
It did not say they could vocally "talk" or even have the same
kind of grammar development. NOTHING you posted gave any proof
that was wrong, in fact the research involved a different species
(Chimps).
It does not at all deny anything I wrote below, and in fact
simply shows that the issue is still being contested. The fact
its from a textbook makes it even more dubious, since textbooks
are broad interpretations of a discipline, often reflecting
particular points of view. Linguists especially have often
rather, uh, to put it nicely "specialized" ways of understanding
things. Any attempt to claim this is settled is obviously
wrong. Attempts to use what you posted to label the research
done with Koko and others as mythology or pseudo science is
disgusting.
Scott D. Erb
Cephalus wrote:
>
> I'm so impressed! Another study by nonlinguists. I understand some
> physicists have shown that you can square the circle!
Linguists don't get to make the call, and their field is hardly
one of unanimity. I suggest you stop being so rigid in the way
you approach these issues, that tends to close ones mind from
considering new possibilities.
Scott D. Erb
Cephalus wrote:
>
> That is precisely the issue. If you cannot form sentences using a
> grammar, then how are you different from a parrot with a large
> vocabulary.
Since you seem to be only into intro to linguistics and a text
book, perhaps you just need a hand. Read the statement you
posted again. You'll see that at best what the person was saying
is that an hypothesis that apes had a grammar was not yet
supported by evidence. Of course, issues of what a grammar is,
and how much of one is needed to communicate are very tricky (and
whether or not it can be detected), and there linguists may not
be the best ones to ask. But it does not support your use of
terms like 'pseudoscience.' In fact, a linguist accusing a
biologist of practicing pseudoscience would be laughed at.
> >This is not to say that animals don't communicate.
> >Even fish communicate. Most animals use body
> >language and scents more than articulated sounds.
> >Vocal speech is 'unique' to humans. Apes have been
> >taught to talk to us in sign language and we refuse to listen,
> >we are so proud, but that doesn't make us look that much
> >more intelligent. Nobody has bothered to learn the
> >language of the apes or the whales. We don't
> >appear near smart enough.
>
> What?!? Refuse to listen? Are you nuts? They only sign at us when
> we prompt them and after extensive training. We look for all variety
> of meaning in their gestures and claim that animals use language.
> Linguistics would be expanded by such a conclusion not diminished by
> it. If whales had language think of the funding linguists would get!
But, of course, linguists really only play a small role in this
kind of study. First you need those who study animals and can
work to develop ways of communication that may not involve what
all linguists would consider a language.
> "We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
> contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this issue.
But they weren't unequivocal statements, and experts are often
wrong. Einstein has been wrong on physics, and well, almost all
experts are proven to have been wrong on many theories. That's
why it's a logical fallacy to simply quote a text book and say
that if the expert thinks something, then it must be true. You
have to look at the evidence and argument, and that doesn't
support the claims you make.
citizen
"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c4a590e...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
> >>
> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Given that we are very close relatives of our fellow primates,
> >> >the apes, why is it so hard to believe that they can communicate
> >> >in a way that is more than just mere emulation?
> >>
> >> distribution problem I was having, the damned thing had nothing say,
> >> so I figured it was useless.
> >>
> >> Let me know when you run across an ape that can lend a hand.
> >
> >I was here silently lucking trying to learn how to speak "lofty liberal
> >lingo" so I could ask a philosophical question!
>
> I figure that's a joke. If it's not, you'll discover the
> absurdity of it with these idiots, soon enough.
I always try to have a certain amount of humor mixed with serious in intent.
As Hanson,Erb and company were descussing Apes and Chimps inteligence and
comunacation skills.
I was observing them trying to determine basicly the same.
>
> >Now I will never know why a piece of toast always seems to fall with the
jam
> >side down:>))
>
> That's easy: it's about gravity. The jam side is heavier. If it
> has distance enough during the fall, events take their course to the
> natural conclusion.
Yes this would be the anwser to the question termed as a phisics question
but not as a philosophical one.
The toast is corrupted by the jam and throws it out of balance.
The only way to fix the problem is to cut the toast and jam into and fold
them together.
Libertarian for the balanced solution:>))
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?
LET THEM TAKE ARMS"
- Thomas Jefferson -US Ambassador to France.
God Bless America!
Stew
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor1.html
http://www.civicsandpolitics.com/#Cool
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
http://www.sas-aim.org/
Cephalus
You're the one that can't handle it when they get sternly refuted.
You grow up.
I think I am just going to follow you around and expose you for the
pretentious intellectual fraud you are...
Cephalus
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>news:3c4ab720...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:23:31 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>> >news:3c49464...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:19:26 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3c486dee...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> >> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:09:13 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> >> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >
>> >Cultural Relativism is not an exhaustively descriptive definition and I
>> >wonder why you would try to suggest that it is. It holds that different
>> >cultures have different moral codes that often conflict with other
>cultures.
>> >It is a descriptive rather than a directive point of view.
>> >
>>
>> As a description it still has to say *something*. Saying that
>> different cultures are different is not saying anything of substance.
>> What typically happens in this vein of reasoning is that the term
>> "cultural relativism" will be offered as a very basic indisputable
>> statement like "different cultures are different". At that stage in
>> the discussion it will require almost no justification. Then later on
>> it will be construed in its more meaningful sense (and what it is
>> really used to denote) as meaning that there are no universal cultural
>> traits.
>
>Garbage. Try to deal with definitions for what they say rather than what
>YOU think their intent is. Demonstrate that it's being used in that sense
>and for that purpose or move on.
Garbage? Do you have any intellectual integrity? My point is that it
cannot be used meaningfully in any other way. Are you saying that
when someone declares that they are a cultural relativist, they are
saying nothing more than that they think there is more than one
culture?
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >If it is not, it seems not to connect with your comments on cultural
>> >myths.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Also, you failed to support your remark on language and 'apes.' Nor
>> >could
>> >> >you, past a point. There are ongoing arguments on both sides of that
>> >issue,
>> >> >and enough continued controversy to militate against putting the
>matter
>> >into
>> >> >the same category as 'babies in the microwave' urban legends and
>cultural
>> >> >myths.
>> >>
>> >> I did not fail to support it since that would imply I tried. I don't
>> >> really have to.
>> >
>> >Well, yes you really do if you want it to pass is off as something more
>than
>> >a blatantly unsupported assertion.
>> >
>>
>> Well, no I really don't -- any more than I have to support the
>> assertion that that the Earth is round.
>
>Or that the Earth is flat, which is really more like the kind of assertion
>you're making. See, it's all of a piece.
Grow up.
> If you want to make ignorant
>statements which you leave unsupported, that's fine, but the rest of the
>world can be excused for believing that you're being ignorant when you make
>those statements.
This from someone that just dismisses the experts when they don't
agree with him.
>
>
>>
>> >> Almost no one (that knows what they are talking
>> >> about) thinks that apes have the capacity for language.
>> >
>> >I had wondered when you would begin to the employ the 'everyone [who
>knows
>> >what they're talking about]' argument. Does that sort of argument
>impress
>> >you?
>>
>> Give me a break.
>
>That's not my job. If you want a break, speak sensibly.
Oooh. I'm impressed!
>
>> Go look it up. I am telling you to look in an intro
>> to linguistics text book. I am not saying that mr. so and so -- the
>> leading expert on a highly contentious point says so. I am telling
>> you that the linguists almost universally agree.
>
>I doubt that the linguists will end up being the last word on a subject like
>this, especially considering how spectacularly unsuccessful that field has
>been, but I'm sure that they felt the need to weigh in
>
Unsuccessful? What do you mean?
Well, if the proponents of the animals have the capacity for language
hypothesis would actually share their data, then maybe we would get
somewhere on the subject. And I agree, at that point the linguists
won't have to say anything. Any scientist will be able to see how
absurdly unscientific these "studies" are.
>> If you think that is an inappropriate apeal to authority, you're an
>> idiot. YOU better have a damn good reason for going against the
>> authorities at that point.
>
>Oh garbage. You can't even present their reasons. That's why you're
>appealing to them in the first place. It's a typical appeal to authority,
>made on the basis of not having a decent argument of your own.
>
You are a full of shit fraud. I have posted quotes from introductory
textbooks on the subject. What do you have? Another charlatan
presenting pseudoscience as if it were scientific results. An ape
using sign language is no different than a dog learning a trick.
These "studies" are supposed to establish the intelligence of apes,
and they have failed miserably.
>>
>> >It's never held a lot of weight with me. How will we determine who
>> >"knows what they are talking about"?
>>
>> Oh, gee, I don't know -- by the fact that they are a professional
>> linguist?
>
>Which gives them the keys to the universe, eh?
>
No -- you shit for brains. It makes them the professional that knows
what they are talking about and the psychologist that disputes them no
better than a freshman ling major mouthing out in class.
>>
>> > Is it based entirely on degree? Where
>> >they got the degree? Is it consenses? When does it become a matter of
>> >'everyone?' 60% agreement, 75%? 90%?
>>
>> Well in this case, how about when it starts showing up in introductory
>> textbooks on linguistics as a popular myth?
>
>You really don't get the point at all do you? No problem. Stick with your
>introductions to the subject. We don't generally expect the student to
>start thinking for themselves until the third year.
Good lord! You are an arrogant windbag. I was wondering just how
much of a pretentious fraud of a pseudo-intellectual you were. I
guess now I know.
You've been refuted. Now you are just whining about it. Anyone that
doesn't already believe that apes have the capacity for language can
easily see both that the professionals now dismiss it as a myth and
why based on my posts.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> If they did
>> >> they certainly wouldn't need us to teach one to them since they would
>> >> already be using one.
>> >
>> >That doesn't follow logically or practically. You're trying to conflate
>> >capacity and ability.
>> >
>>
>> No -- I'm not conflating the two at all. I am saying that if they had
>> the capacity, they would have almost surely developed the ability.
>
>Garbage. Do you honestly think it's like electric lighting?
What the hell does lightning have to do with this?
> If you have
>it, you just flip the switch? Please. A little less linguistics, a little
>more evolutionary biology.
>
Oh I see. For a long time birds had the capacity for flight until
they finally started using it. Please a little less bullshit and a
little more science of any sort.
>> Otherwise, it would be like birds never flying -- not because they
>> don't have wings -- but because no one ever introduced flight to them.
>
>Ya think they just woke up with wings one day and ran out of the nest to
>taxi off onto the runway, eh?
How that is even implied by my post is a mystery. On the other hand,
you seem to think that it is indeed possible. Apes can go from not
using any language to yucking it up in the jungle in one generation if
only they are taught a language.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> As to babies and microwaves, I really don't know what you are talking
>> >> about. If you want an argument or proof that apes don't have the
>> >> capacity for language, then just survey what linguists seem to think
>> >> on the matter.
>> >
>> >And you'll find arguments on both sides. Further, your argument assumes
>> >that lingists are the only possible authorities on the issue. That also
>> >does not follow.
>>
>> Yeah it does. Who else would know what is or is not language and when
>> someone is using a code or can use the language?
>
>The people who wrote the first real arguments against communication in apes:
>Psychologists. Thanks for proving that you really don't know the history of
>this subject or what the hell you're talking about.
What?!? A psychology doesn't even profess to handle the nature of
language you fool. Thanks for showing YOU don't know what the hell
you're talking about.
>
>>
>> It is basically a well established fact.
>
>No, it's not.
Yeah ... it is.
>
>> You just have to go look it
>> up.
>
>Considering the fact that you don't even know where the original arguments
>against ape communication abilities came from, it's pretty apparent that a
>few hours of research on this subject would be in order if you intend to
>ever know anything about it.
>
Look, I don't care if apes do or don't have the capacity for language.
If anything linguists would like them to have such a capacity since
that would make linguistics more important in the grand scheme of
things. I am not even interested in some sort of history of the
debate if it has been more or less resolved by clearly established
experts with an unequivocal statement on the matter.
This is fairly straight forward. It has been measured and the results
are that apes can be trained to use a code, the same way birds can for
that matter, but they do not have the capacity for language. If you
read intro to ling textbooks, it is pretty obvious why and what the
difference between code and animal communication versus actual
language is.
>> The so called "experts" you would invoke are basically just
>> ignorant about both the scientific method
>
>Right. Those would be the Evolutionary biologists, behaviorists,
>primatologists, and the other linguists who don't agree with the
>introductory chapter of your first year linguistics text. You know, the
>sciences that were using the scientific method before linguistics was
>linguistics.
What other linguists would those be. I was serious when I said I
wouldn't be surprised if you could not find a single linguist that
thinks that whether or not apes have the capacity for language is
really an open question. Basically, all the linguists think that
those that hold that apes can communicate or think that they maybe
could, just don't understand the difference between a language and a
code -- the most elementary ideas in linguistics. That is why
biologists and psychologists can wind up making such absurd claims --
basically because some aspect of their assertion is something they are
more less ignorant on.
I'll also note that in terms of differentiating junk science from real
science and the assignment of legitimacy to fields, linguistics is a
notch more legit than many of the "fields" you are quoting. For
instance, if a biologist publishes something of interest to other
biologists in a mainstream journal of biology, that is one thing. If
a sociobiologist or a primatologist claims results that they refuse to
submit to anyone let alone a mainstream journal of a longstanding
field like biology or even psychology, then that is another thing.
Linguisitics as a general subject area has far more legitimacy and
credibility than "sociobiology" or "primatology".
>
>We used to have a saying in my department at the University. By the time
>you reach your last year, you need to be able to demonstrate why everything
>you learned in your first year is wrong.
>
>Stop pretending that science is written in stone, drop your urge to
>pigeon-hole reality, and wake up to the near infinity of what you don't
>know.
>
Well, it does have results and that would be that apes do not have the
capacity for language. Now why don't you stop whining and just admit
that you are wrong. And by the way, talking down to someone that is
probably better educated than you are is obnoxious and will just
end-up humiliating you.
Cephalus
and the only one that knows anything about what they are talking
about.
I quote textbook material and YOU have the nerve to continue posting
in denfense of a nearly indefensible position.
Amazing.
Cephalus
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Cephalus wrote:
>>
>> That is precisely the issue. If you cannot form sentences using a
>> grammar, then how are you different from a parrot with a large
>> vocabulary.
>
>Since you seem to be only into intro to linguistics and a text
>book, perhaps you just need a hand. Read the statement you
>posted again. You'll see that at best what the person was saying
>is that an hypothesis that apes had a grammar was not yet
>supported by evidence.
It was an article about why apes do not have the capacity for
language! What else coudl I possibly get?!?
> Of course, issues of what a grammar is,
>and how much of one is needed to communicate are very tricky (and
>whether or not it can be detected), and there linguists may not
>be the best ones to ask.
What?!? If there is ANYTHING to ask a linguist it is what a grammar
is and what is required for langauge. Once again, let me point out
that my statement that launched a thousand IDIOTIC responses was that
apes don't have the cpacity for LANGUAGE! So unless you are now going
to say that I should have totally ignored your response to me because
it was completely non sequitur, then stay on task.
> But it does not support your use of
>terms like 'pseudoscience.' In fact, a linguist accusing a
>biologist of practicing pseudoscience would be laughed at.
>
And what is your field? Mine is mathematics.
>> >This is not to say that animals don't communicate.
>> >Even fish communicate. Most animals use body
>> >language and scents more than articulated sounds.
>> >Vocal speech is 'unique' to humans. Apes have been
>> >taught to talk to us in sign language and we refuse to listen,
>> >we are so proud, but that doesn't make us look that much
>> >more intelligent. Nobody has bothered to learn the
>> >language of the apes or the whales. We don't
>> >appear near smart enough.
>>
>> What?!? Refuse to listen? Are you nuts? They only sign at us when
>> we prompt them and after extensive training. We look for all variety
>> of meaning in their gestures and claim that animals use language.
>> Linguistics would be expanded by such a conclusion not diminished by
>> it. If whales had language think of the funding linguists would get!
>
>But, of course, linguists really only play a small role in this
>kind of study. First you need those who study animals and can
>work to develop ways of communication that may not involve what
>all linguists would consider a language.
>
*ROFLMAO*
>> "We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
>> contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this issue.
>
>But they weren't unequivocal statements, and experts are often
>wrong. Einstein has been wrong on physics, and well, almost all
>experts are proven to have been wrong on many theories. That's
>why it's a logical fallacy to simply quote a text book and say
>that if the expert thinks something, then it must be true. You
>have to look at the evidence and argument, and that doesn't
>support the claims you make.
What do you know about physics?
Nonetheless, I am not talking about **A** linguist but the field of
linguistics. Of course ANYTHING can be disputed and you have to rely
on expert testimony about somethings. In fact you have to do so on
most things.
What I am doing is not even remotely a fallacy. I hate to break it to
you, but Time Magazine was wrong about Cold Fusion and they're wrong
about Talking Monkey's too. But give my regards to the aliens that
have been abducting you.
Cephalus
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Cephalus wrote:
>>
>> What?!? I guess you just don't get it. This is out of an intro to
>> linguistics textbook. It is as much of a refutation of the hypothesis
>> that apes have the capacity for language as you can get. It even
>> specifically mentions Koko.
>
>> Face it, the "Apes can talk" experiments are just pseudoscience and
>> mythology.
>
>You don't get it, you're not quoting any test that falsified an
>hypothesis or was even able to make judgements. To read what you
>claim above from the bit you posted is simply wrong. Also, I did
>not say "apes can talk." Your attempt to shift the claim suggests
>you know that your original statement was misguided. Here is
>what I noted:
>
>The experiments, including ones with Koko and other primates,
>suggest strongly that communication between species is possible.
>It did not say they could vocally "talk" or even have the same
>kind of grammar development. NOTHING you posted gave any proof
>that was wrong, in fact the research involved a different species
>(Chimps).
a) You were responding to my post about animals having the capacity
for langauge, so if you want to get specific about what is the point
of contention, that's it.
b) The material I quoted was an excerpt from a textbook from a passage
explaining specifically why it is that animals do not have the
capacity for language.
c) That passage specifically mentioned the VERY same animal you did
and made specific statements that included that particular animal.
This must be very humiliating for you...
>
>It does not at all deny anything I wrote below, and in fact
>simply shows that the issue is still being contested. The fact
>its from a textbook makes it even more dubious, since textbooks
>are broad interpretations of a discipline, often reflecting
>particular points of view.
What?!? Yeah, my math texts were so contentious. And when it gets
approved by entire departments (the Linguisitics Department at Ohio
State in this case) for publication and then gets improved by other
departments for use in course material -- introductory course material
at that. It doesn't get more legitimate or resolved than that. This
isn't some obscure position taken by some linguists somewhere.
>Linguists especially have often
>rather, uh, to put it nicely "specialized" ways of understanding
>things.
And what did you major in?
> Any attempt to claim this is settled is obviously
>wrong.
No ts not. It is obvious that what I said was the case is in fact the
case. There are widely prevalent myths that animals have the capacity
for langauge. They are obviously promulgated by professionals from
other disciplines making claims that they are not submitting for peer
review.
For instance, the very case you brought up with Koko for which the
article I cited from's author was antagonized. That is hardly the
scientific dispute that you claim it is.
>Attempts to use what you posted to label the research
>done with Koko and others as mythology or pseudo science is
>disgusting.
>
Their fraudulent attempt to pass their work off as science is more
disgusting.
-snip-
Cephalus
linguist that thinks that animals have the capacity for language and
I'll entertain the possibility that there is any dispute at all over
this particular issue.
I don't think you really know what the scientific method is or what a
science is supposed to be.
Cephalus
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>news:3c4b0e19...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>
>>
>> "We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
>> contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this issue.
>
>It takes even greater arrogance to believe that a few 'unequivocal'
>statements by linguistics professors are going to lay an issue to rest when
>several other physical and social sciences completely disagree.
>
That is complete bull shit. Linguists are THE experts on language.
Certainly some psychologist or biologist doesn't even know the basics,
generally. and that is why they make outrageous and false claims that
do nto end up in peer reviewed journals.
But, what the hell. Let's take a look at the Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Human Evolution and see what evolutionary biology has to say on the
subject:
"Language is an adaptation unique to humans..."
"There are no non-human animal langauges."
"Early attempts to teach American Sign Language (ASL) to apes
suggested that these animals had remarkable and near human langauge
capabilities. However, recent more carefully analysed work has led to
reassessment of these early claims."
It goes on to explain the physical relationship between the brain and
the physical ability to speak and so on. This book has a foreword by
Richard Dawkins and the article was by Terrence Deacon.
>But it also takes real immaturity and a real lack of experience in education
>to believe that something being in an introductory chapter of a textbook
>lays an issue to rest or represents the last word on the subject.
You are a fucking moron. I have forgotten more about science than a
full of shit intellectual fraud like you will ever admit they never
knew. People like you are corrupting academia. If it weren't for
this kind of unmitigated fraud I would still be there.
One day there will be no serious people left, and then where will you
and your kind be.
Gandalf Grey
More integrity than to believe that the introduction to a text on
linguistics is the last word on something.
> >> >> I did not fail to support it since that would imply I tried. I
don't
> >> >> really have to.
> >> >
> >> >Well, yes you really do if you want it to pass is off as something
more
> >than
> >> >a blatantly unsupported assertion.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, no I really don't -- any more than I have to support the
> >> assertion that that the Earth is round.
> >
> >Or that the Earth is flat, which is really more like the kind of
assertion
> >you're making. See, it's all of a piece.
>
> Grow up.
Tell me some more about the unequivocal statements of experts. I never get
tired of that bit.
>
> > If you want to make ignorant
> >statements which you leave unsupported, that's fine, but the rest of the
> >world can be excused for believing that you're being ignorant when you
make
> >those statements.
>
> This from someone that just dismisses the experts when they don't
> agree with him.
This from someone who believes that an 'expert' opening their mouth
dismisses a subject.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >> Almost no one (that knows what they are talking
> >> >> about) thinks that apes have the capacity for language.
> >> >
> >> >I had wondered when you would begin to the employ the 'everyone [who
> >knows
> >> >what they're talking about]' argument. Does that sort of argument
> >impress
> >> >you?
> >>
> >> Give me a break.
> >
> >That's not my job. If you want a break, speak sensibly.
>
> Oooh. I'm impressed!
I'm not surprised. Anyone who swallows an introductory chapter in a
linguistics textbook as gospel can't be THAT hard to impress.
>
> >> If you think that is an inappropriate apeal to authority, you're an
> >> idiot. YOU better have a damn good reason for going against the
> >> authorities at that point.
> >
> >Oh garbage. You can't even present their reasons. That's why you're
> >appealing to them in the first place. It's a typical appeal to
authority,
> >made on the basis of not having a decent argument of your own.
> >
>
> You are a full of shit fraud.
Head back to those textbooks, son. You've got a lot of growing up to do.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:31:14 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >news:3c4b088b...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >> I see. I get unequivocal expert input and you guys still refuse to
> >> admit you are wrong.
> >
> >There's nothing "unequivical" about "expert input."
> >
> >You need to grow up.
> >
> >
> You're the one that can't handle it when they get sternly refuted.
> You grow up.
Is this where I'm supposed to say "NO. YOU grow up!" ?
Please. No one's refuted anything with respect to animal communication.
Certainly, the linguistics community hasn't done anything to put the issue
to rest.
>
> I think I am just going to follow you around and expose you for the
> pretentious intellectual fraud you are...
Another heel-biter. How truly different!
Gandalf Grey
> The debate rages on between a bunch of ingorant uneducatable zealots
It's "uneducable." You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Just try to read
a bit more and don't believe everything you read in the introduction to
textbooks.
You'll grow up......eventually.
Gandalf Grey
> Give me a break it is a more or less well established fact.
In the linguistics community. Outside of that group of tightly shut and
sealed minds, it's still an open question with many articles being written
and being submitted to peer review.
Gandalf Grey
>
> What?!? If there is ANYTHING to ask a linguist it is what a grammar
> is and what is required for langauge.
And you'll get a closed-minded definition that eliminates anything but human
beings by defintion.
What a joke.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:52:24 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >news:3c4b0e19...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >> "We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
> >> contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this issue.
> >
> >It takes even greater arrogance to believe that a few 'unequivocal'
> >statements by linguistics professors are going to lay an issue to rest
when
> >several other physical and social sciences completely disagree.
> >
>
> That is complete bull shit. Linguists are THE experts on language.
But they are NOT the experts on evolution, nor are they the experts on
biology, nor are they the experts in psychology, nor are they the experts on
primatology. THAT'S your problem. The fact that your fussy, almost
entirely unimportant little field just couldn't bring itself to work with
other, older, better established and more scientific disciplines.
> Certainly some psychologist or biologist doesn't even know the basics,
> generally. and that is why they make outrageous and false claims that
> do nto end up in peer reviewed journals.
You're lying, dear boy. The writings of most of the workers in the field DO
wind up in peer reviewed journals. The fact that some of these workers also
go on to write books and not just dumbed-down introductory chapters in
linguistics textbooks is another matter.
>
> >But it also takes real immaturity and a real lack of experience in
education
> >to believe that something being in an introductory chapter of a textbook
> >lays an issue to rest or represents the last word on the subject.
>
> You are a fucking moron. I have forgotten more about science than a
> full of shit intellectual fraud like you will ever admit they never
> knew. People like you are corrupting academia. If it weren't for
> this kind of unmitigated fraud I would still be there.
Flunked out in your first year, eh? No wonder.
citizen
Why all those experiments never produce talking apes. Chimps will never
talk because their articulatory apparatus is very different from a human's.
But they couldn't talk even if that problem were overcome. Chimps are great
imitators. You can teach them to hold up cards in a certain order because
they want to be rewarded with a banana or tickling. But rats in the same
way, by trial and error, find their way through a maze to reach some cheese.
Pigeons can be taught to push a lever to obtain food. Dogs will learn to sit
and roll over to get food or to have their belly rubbed. We had a pet dog
that used to go berserk whenever someone said, "There goes a cat!" Dolphins
may have more intelligence than apes, but researchers don't want to spend
years in the water trying to teach dolphins to talk. Imitation and DNA
similarities do nothing to show that evolution has occurred. And talking?
Parrots do a much better job than apes, but evolutionists never claim that
we are closely related to parrots, because parrot DNA is not 98 per cent the
same as humans'.
"It has been found that humans and chimps have almost 99 per cent similar
DNA. Doesn't this prove we evolved from the same ancestor as chimpanzees?"
What many people do not realize is that they have DNA similarity in various
amounts with just about everything alive:
You have about 30% genetic similarity with baker's yeast.
You have about 50% genetic similarity with a fruit fly.
You have about 80% genetic similarity with a mouse.
You also have some genes the same as a potato, weeds, and almost every
living thing.
DNA similarities do not show that long ago you evolved from the same
ancestor as a potato, a weed, a mouse, or a chimp. What they show is that
you have some things in common with them - not that you evolved.
The Creator showed incredible and marvelous skill in using many of the same
types of genes to create such widely different animals and plants. Praise
Him!
Gandalf Grey
citizen <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4nb0vm...@corp.supernews.com...
> The Creator showed incredible and marvelous skill in using many of the
same
> types of genes to create such widely different animals and plants.
Reading you always makes me marvel at what the Creator was able to make out
of Playdough.
citizen
Now I know what you teach!
Pre-school:>))
Cephalus
Sadly you will never stop being so full of shit. Not even most
evolutionary biologists believe the talking monkey myth anymore.
Cephalus
You know less about the linguistics community than you do about
linguistics which is basically nothing in either case. If you are
talking about evolutionary biology, they don't believe your talking
monkey myth either.
This just shows how weak the social sciences are. They fall for
debunked theories and because of their lack of any scientific method,
they can "establish" all sorts of "facts" about fiction.
Gandalf Grey
Don't get so upset. At least you can type.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:43:28 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >news:3c4b46e6...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >> Give me a break it is a more or less well established fact.
> >
> >In the linguistics community. Outside of that group of tightly shut and
> >sealed minds, it's still an open question with many articles being
written
> >and being submitted to peer review.
>
> You know less about the linguistics community than you do about
> linguistics which is basically nothing in either case. If you are
> talking about evolutionary biology, they don't believe your talking
> monkey myth either.
Garbage. One article and you think you know evolutionary biology.
What a moron you are. I can certainly see why they flunked you out in your
first year.
Billy Beck
ceph...@athens.org (Cephalus) wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>But, of course, linguists really only play a small role in this
>>kind of study. First you need those who study animals and can
>>work to develop ways of communication that may not involve what
>>all linguists would consider a language.
>*ROFLMAO*
It's classic Erb: definition according to *anything but*
essentials. "It's a language, but it's really not."
There is nothing that he can't make up as he needs it along the
way.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Cephalus
Alright! Surely you have to come up with something in defense of your
multiple accusations about the legitimacy of linguistics and their
bais against the Talking Monkey myth. What is really silly, is that
if anything linguisitics would ove to establish such a fact. Just
think of the flood of money they would get. It would open the field
up and make it a whole lot more important in the larger scheme of
things than it is.
Do you even know how linguists define language? You should have some
idea based on the posts by now. What about the defnition of language
is "closed-minded"?
Cephalus
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>news:3c4b417f...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:31:14 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>> >news:3c4b088b...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I see. I get unequivocal expert input and you guys still refuse to
>> >> admit you are wrong.
>> >
>> >There's nothing "unequivical" about "expert input."
>> >
>> >You need to grow up.
>> >
>> >
>> You're the one that can't handle it when they get sternly refuted.
>> You grow up.
>
>Is this where I'm supposed to say "NO. YOU grow up!" ?
>
>Please. No one's refuted anything with respect to animal communication.
>Certainly, the linguistics community hasn't done anything to put the issue
>to rest.
>
You don't know the difference between the truth and a lie. And
perpetrating this kind of fraud is one of the most disgusting and
wrong things anyone can do. Even passing somethng off endorsed by the
medical community when it isn't I can often handle okay. But really
trying to establish some position as being scientificly upheld when it
isn't is reprehensible.
Having taken a further look into just how debunked the "Talking
Monkey" myth is, you would do well to note that evolutionary
biologists and primatologists as a group recognize it as a myth. See
my citations elsewhere.
>>
>> I think I am just going to follow you around and expose you for the
>> pretentious intellectual fraud you are...
>
>Another heel-biter. How truly different!
>
>
People like you are the worst thing that ever happened to academia.
You deserve to be publicly whipped for this kind of full of shit
behavior. The worst thing of all is that you are just convincing
enough to con a significant number of nonexperts.
Cephalus
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>news:3c4b4a92...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:52:24 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>> >news:3c4b0e19...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
>> >> contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this issue.
>> >
>> >It takes even greater arrogance to believe that a few 'unequivocal'
>> >statements by linguistics professors are going to lay an issue to rest
>when
>> >several other physical and social sciences completely disagree.
>> >
>>
>> That is complete bull shit. Linguists are THE experts on language.
>
>But they are NOT the experts on evolution, nor are they the experts on
>biology, nor are they the experts in psychology, nor are they the experts on
>primatology. THAT'S your problem.
That's YOUR problem. All those experts don't know anything about
language. We are talking about wether or not an ape's behavior
consitutes the use of langauge. You don't need to know anything about
psychology or evolution or primatology to be able to tell if they are
using sign language or if they are just emulating behavior.
What you need to know is what the difference is between what humans do
when they sign and whatever the apes are doing (if anything). It is
now apparently widely accepted in all fields since, for instance, the
Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution talks matter of factly about
how apes do not have the capacity for language.
> The fact that your fussy, almost
>entirely unimportant little field just couldn't bring itself to work with
>other, older, better established and more scientific disciplines.
>
What?!?
1) Linguisitics is not MY field.
2) Fields like evolutionary biology and primatology are not even
remotely as well-established as linguistics if they are even fields
unto themselves.
>> Certainly some psychologist or biologist doesn't even know the basics,
>> generally. and that is why they make outrageous and false claims that
>> do nto end up in peer reviewed journals.
>
>You're lying, dear boy. The writings of most of the workers in the field DO
>wind up in peer reviewed journals. The fact that some of these workers also
>go on to write books and not just dumbed-down introductory chapters in
>linguistics textbooks is another matter.
>
Oh -- you mean like the Journal of Comparative Psychology? And what
would they know about the difference between language and
communication? Certainly that is not where the hypothesis that apes
have the capacity for language would be established. That would have
to be established in a linguistics journal.
The hypothesis "apes have the capacity for language" is not being
discussed in any peer reviewed journal that I know of. Let's see the
proof, though.
>>
>> >But it also takes real immaturity and a real lack of experience in
>education
>> >to believe that something being in an introductory chapter of a textbook
>> >lays an issue to rest or represents the last word on the subject.
>>
>> You are a fucking moron. I have forgotten more about science than a
>> full of shit intellectual fraud like you will ever admit they never
>> knew. People like you are corrupting academia. If it weren't for
>> this kind of unmitigated fraud I would still be there.
>
>Flunked out in your first year, eh? No wonder.
What?!? That was weak even for the cut-down it was supposed to be.
Now, based on my experience teaching math to weakminded liberal arts
majors, I'm guessing you can't pass calculus. Or maybe you actually
made it through the version for dummies that all the liberal arts
majors have to take.
Am I right? Come on -- you know I am!
Cephalus
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
Come on! This is getting absurd! It is textbook material and you
STILL dispute it! Nothing would convince you. And you have almost no
cites.
Do you really think that a lurker would think that you aren't the
childish one? How much more of an unequivocal refutation can you get?
>
>
>> >> >> I did not fail to support it since that would imply I tried. I
>don't
>> >> >> really have to.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, yes you really do if you want it to pass is off as something
>more
>> >than
>> >> >a blatantly unsupported assertion.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, no I really don't -- any more than I have to support the
>> >> assertion that that the Earth is round.
>> >
>> >Or that the Earth is flat, which is really more like the kind of
>assertion
>> >you're making. See, it's all of a piece.
>>
>> Grow up.
>
>Tell me some more about the unequivocal statements of experts. I never get
>tired of that bit.
>
They expose you for the fraud that you are. Your philosophy posts are
basically full of shit too.
>>
>> > If you want to make ignorant
>> >statements which you leave unsupported, that's fine, but the rest of the
>> >world can be excused for believing that you're being ignorant when you
>make
>> >those statements.
>>
>> This from someone that just dismisses the experts when they don't
>> agree with him.
>
>This from someone who believes that an 'expert' opening their mouth
>dismisses a subject.
>
AN expert?!? No, you fucking moron. It was the entire Ohio State
Linguisitics Department as well as Cambridge discussing Human
Evolution. And that is just what I have cited. Which is a hell of a
lot more than you have.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> Almost no one (that knows what they are talking
>> >> >> about) thinks that apes have the capacity for language.
>> >> >
>> >> >I had wondered when you would begin to the employ the 'everyone [who
>> >knows
>> >> >what they're talking about]' argument. Does that sort of argument
>> >impress
>> >> >you?
>> >>
>> >> Give me a break.
>> >
>> >That's not my job. If you want a break, speak sensibly.
>>
>> Oooh. I'm impressed!
>
>I'm not surprised. Anyone who swallows an introductory chapter in a
>linguistics textbook as gospel can't be THAT hard to impress.
>
Well, my degrees are in math. How about you?
>
>>
>> >> If you think that is an inappropriate apeal to authority, you're an
>> >> idiot. YOU better have a damn good reason for going against the
>> >> authorities at that point.
>> >
>> >Oh garbage. You can't even present their reasons. That's why you're
>> >appealing to them in the first place. It's a typical appeal to
>authority,
>> >made on the basis of not having a decent argument of your own.
>> >
>>
>> You are a full of shit fraud.
>
>Head back to those textbooks, son. You've got a lot of growing up to do.
Like I said, you are a full of shit fraud.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:35:07 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >news:3c4b417f...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:31:14 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:3c4b088b...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I see. I get unequivocal expert input and you guys still refuse to
> >> >> admit you are wrong.
> >> >
> >> >There's nothing "unequivical" about "expert input."
> >> >
> >> >You need to grow up.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> You're the one that can't handle it when they get sternly refuted.
> >> You grow up.
> >
> >Is this where I'm supposed to say "NO. YOU grow up!" ?
> >
> >Please. No one's refuted anything with respect to animal communication.
> >Certainly, the linguistics community hasn't done anything to put the
issue
> >to rest.
> >
>
> You don't know the difference between the truth and a lie.
And a jerk like you, who doesn't even know that Natural Law gave rise to the
Divine Right of Kings isn't going to be lecturing anyone on truth. God!
You haven't even figured out what the term Natural Law meant yet.
What a moron.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:52:44 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >news:3c4b4a92...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:52:24 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> >> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:3c4b0e19...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
> >> >> contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this
issue.
> >> >
> >> >It takes even greater arrogance to believe that a few 'unequivocal'
> >> >statements by linguistics professors are going to lay an issue to rest
> >when
> >> >several other physical and social sciences completely disagree.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is complete bull shit. Linguists are THE experts on language.
> >
> >But they are NOT the experts on evolution, nor are they the experts on
> >biology, nor are they the experts in psychology, nor are they the experts
on
> >primatology. THAT'S your problem.
>
> That's YOUR problem.
Not at all. The problem of animal communication is being actively pursued
in several fields simultaneously right at this moment and the results are
being published in peer-reviewed journals and the field is leaving you and
your fussy little ivory tower linguists on the sidelines.
> > The fact that your fussy, almost
> >entirely unimportant little field just couldn't bring itself to work with
> >other, older, better established and more scientific disciplines.
> >
>
> What?!?
>
> 1) Linguisitics is not MY field.
Well, yeah. I was being generous. We've already figured out that you
flunked out in your first year.
>
> 2) Fields like evolutionary biology and primatology are not even
> remotely as well-established as linguistics if they are even fields
> unto themselves.
If they are fields in themselves????????
You're rich.
Gandalf Grey
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:44:55 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
> >news:3c4b4a9f...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >> What?!? If there is ANYTHING to ask a linguist it is what a grammar
> >> is and what is required for langauge.
> >
> >And you'll get a closed-minded definition that eliminates anything but
human
> >beings by defintion.
> >
> >What a joke.
> >
> >
>
> Alright! Surely you have to come up with something in defense of your
> multiple accusations about the legitimacy of linguistics and their
> bais against the Talking Monkey myth.
Why would I bother? You have a strange conception of onus probandi. Animal
communication research is going on right now in REAL sciences like biology,
evolutionary biology, primatology, psychology. If the fussy little people
in linguistics want to pretend that it's all not happening, that's really
their problem and the problem of their gullible defenders like you.
Gandalf Grey
No. It's the material of a textbook. That's where your tiny mind is
stalled in neutral on this subject.
>
> Do you really think that a lurker would think that you aren't the
> childish one?
I expect that a lurker will notice that you showed up on this thread
mouthing off about 'unequivocal refutations' rather than actually making
any. I expect a lurker will notice that from the moment you showed up until
now, you've done really nothing more than make unsupported assertions and
idiotic mistakes about basic philosophy which you obviously know nothing
about. I expect that a lurker will notice that rather than even question
what was going on in any of the threads, your immediate move was to
pronounce snap judgements on nearly everything in them like an
overconfident, undereducated college freshman, which is what I suspect you
are.
You're an idiot of a very typical kind. You believe you're educated when in
fact, you're just overly fond of what little you know. You honestly believe
that a textbook decides what truth is and you haven't even taken the trouble
to look up most of the terms you've been so foolish as to make comments on.
To date, we've seen that you don't know what the hell Natural Law is, where
the Divine Right of Kings came from, what contractarianism was and became,
and the difference between the opinion of 'experts' and truth.
Most of the lurkers will notice that your only addition to any thread you've
shown up in so far is an increase in static.
I've got another essay to get to work on. I've already wasted far too much
of my time on a cretin who actually believes that first year textbooks
decide reality.
Keynes
>On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:52:24 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Cephalus <ceph...@athens.org> wrote in message
>>news:3c4b0e19...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>>
>>>
>>> "We are so proud"?!? If you ask me it takes an amazing arrogance to
>>> contradict the unequivocal statements of clear experts on this issue.
>>
>>It takes even greater arrogance to believe that a few 'unequivocal'
>>statements by linguistics professors are going to lay an issue to rest when
>>several other physical and social sciences completely disagree.
>>
>
>That is complete bull shit. Linguists are THE experts on language.
>Certainly some psychologist or biologist doesn't even know the basics,
>generally. and that is why they make outrageous and false claims that
>do nto end up in peer reviewed journals.
>
>But, what the hell. Let's take a look at the Cambridge Encyclopedia
>of Human Evolution and see what evolutionary biology has to say on the
>subject:
>
>"Language is an adaptation unique to humans..."
>
>"There are no non-human animal langauges."
>
There you go. By definition you must win.
>"Early attempts to teach American Sign Language (ASL) to apes
>suggested that these animals had remarkable and near human langauge
>capabilities. However, recent more carefully analysed work has led to
>reassessment of these early claims."
>
I spent ten years in a factory and met people there with
very limited vocabularies. They punctuated every word
with short anglo-saxon explicatives. They spoke only
in the present tense.
If you define communication
as language and further define it as something only
humans can do, then the case is closed right along
with your mind. What about the gray parrot that can
count, recognise shape, color, and materials, and
give answers in perfect english?
>It goes on to explain the physical relationship between the brain and
>the physical ability to speak and so on. This book has a foreword by
>Richard Dawkins and the article was by Terrence Deacon.
>
Dawkins is a reductionist idiot.
He argues that the chicken is merely the egg's way of reproducing itself.
>>But it also takes real immaturity and a real lack of experience in education
>>to believe that something being in an introductory chapter of a textbook
>>lays an issue to rest or represents the last word on the subject.
>
>You are a fucking moron. I have forgotten more about science than a
>full of shit intellectual fraud like you will ever admit they never
>knew. People like you are corrupting academia. If it weren't for
>this kind of unmitigated fraud I would still be there.
>
>One day there will be no serious people left, and then where will you
>and your kind be.
You are a "fucking moron" dropout.
Bow wow, wow, wow. Yipe, yipe, yipe.
Keynes
>
>
> Why all those experiments never produce talking apes. Chimps will never
>talk because their articulatory apparatus is very different from a human's.
>But they couldn't talk even if that problem were overcome. Chimps are great
>imitators. You can teach them to hold up cards in a certain order because
>they want to be rewarded with a banana or tickling. But rats in the same
>way, by trial and error, find their way through a maze to reach some cheese.
>Pigeons can be taught to push a lever to obtain food. Dogs will learn to sit
>and roll over to get food or to have their belly rubbed. We had a pet dog
You are saying that humans learn language and everything
else in some mysterious 'other' way than pets do? Wrong.
Babies are rewarded for 'correct' behavior and punished for the opposite.
Students are rewarded for 'correct' behavior and punished for the opposite.
Citizens are rewarded for 'correct' behavior and punished for the opposite.
Humans have a particular way of communicating. We jabber a whole lot.
Birds sing. Apes in the wild have other ways to communicate.
They don't sing like birds or jabber like humans. So what?
If we interest an ape in communicating with humans, it is the ape
who takes the steps to bridge the species gap, not the humans.
And yet we are the 'superior' species. If we were peacocks,
we would consider all intelligence consists of a really big tail.
>that used to go berserk whenever someone said, "There goes a cat!" Dolphins
>may have more intelligence than apes, but researchers don't want to spend
>years in the water trying to teach dolphins to talk. Imitation and DNA
>similarities do nothing to show that evolution has occurred. And talking?
>Parrots do a much better job than apes, but evolutionists never claim that
>we are closely related to parrots, because parrot DNA is not 98 per cent the
>same as humans'.
>
>"It has been found that humans and chimps have almost 99 per cent similar
>DNA. Doesn't this prove we evolved from the same ancestor as chimpanzees?"
>
>
>What many people do not realize is that they have DNA similarity in various
>amounts with just about everything alive:
>
>You have about 30% genetic similarity with baker's yeast.
>
>You have about 50% genetic similarity with a fruit fly.
>
>You have about 80% genetic similarity with a mouse.
>
>You also have some genes the same as a potato, weeds, and almost every
>living thing.
>DNA similarities do not show that long ago you evolved from the same
>ancestor as a potato, a weed, a mouse, or a chimp. What they show is that
>you have some things in common with them - not that you evolved.
>
Yes it does show that.
Scott D. Erb
Cephalus wrote:
>
> The debate rages on between a bunch of ingorant uneducatable zealots
> and the only one that knows anything about what they are talking
> about.
>
> I quote textbook material and YOU have the nerve to continue posting
> in denfense of a nearly indefensible position.
>
> Amazing.
What's amazing is that you think that what you quoted supports
your position (it does not), and that you think quoting a text
book ends scientific and philosophical debate on a subject.
You're wrong.
Scott D. Erb
Cephalus wrote:
>
> a) You were responding to my post about animals having the capacity
> for langauge, so if you want to get specific about what is the point
> of contention, that's it.
>
> b) The material I quoted was an excerpt from a textbook from a passage
> explaining specifically why it is that animals do not have the
> capacity for language.
>
> c) That passage specifically mentioned the VERY same animal you did
> and made specific statements that included that particular animal.
>
> This must be very humiliating for you...
Methinks thou doth protest too much. Nothing in that passage
said it was impossible that Koko communicated, nothing said that
current studies along those fields were pseudoscience and
mythology, and nothing in what is posted provided evidence to
prove the opinion of the writer. Finally, expert opinion is not
proof of something, that is a logical fallacy. It would be as
absurd as if I said that since I have a Ph.D. and teach political
science I can't be wrong if I write something that says that
'going to war in Kosovo was wrong and unnecessary.'
Believe it or not, having a degree and being an 'expert' doesn't
mean one can't be wrong. You have to look at the evidence and
the argument. Here what you provided did not even come close to
proving the claim you made, you erred.
> What?!? Yeah, my math texts were so contentious. And when it gets
> approved by entire departments (the Linguisitics Department at Ohio
> State in this case) for publication and then gets improved by other
> departments for use in course material -- introductory course material
> at that. It doesn't get more legitimate or resolved than that. This
> isn't some obscure position taken by some linguists somewhere.
Friend, I teach at a university. Nobody has to approve the books
I use. I know that books come at issues with different
perspectives, and that you can't rely on textbooks as reflecting
absolute truths. I also know that linguistics is a contentious
field with a variety of views, and has disagreements with other
fields. Finally, and most importantly, the bit you quote doesn't
even prove the claims you make. Nothing in there does, and that
is what really nails you.
> > Any attempt to claim this is settled is obviously
> >wrong.
>
> No ts not. It is obvious that what I said was the case is in fact the
> case. There are widely prevalent myths that animals have the capacity
> for langauge. They are obviously promulgated by professionals from
> other disciplines making claims that they are not submitting for peer
> review.
Your opinion is noted, but unless you can prove it with something
other than a passage from a textbook that doesn't even claim what
you say it does, your opinion is rejected.
Scott D. Erb
Cephalus wrote:
>
> Give me a break it is a more or less well established fact. Find me a
> linguist that thinks that animals have the capacity for language and
> I'll entertain the possibility that there is any dispute at all over
> this particular issue.
>
> I don't think you really know what the scientific method is or what a
> science is supposed to be.
I know its more than citing a passage from a text book, claiming
it says something it doesn't, and then calling the subject
closed.
Scott D. Erb
Cephalus wrote:
>
> That is complete bull shit. Linguists are THE experts on language.
They have their own field. But that doesn't give them the
ability to judge experiments and studies by those working with
animals and finding other forms of communication.
And, of course, linguists can be wrong -- many must be, since
there are numerous disagreements within the field!
Given the fact that your response to Gandalf is full of insults
like 'you're a fucking moron' and your posts are getting
exceedingly personal and insulting, I suggest this reflects the
fact that you know evidence isn't on your side. Obviously no one
is claiming that apes or other animals can talk or use language
in the same way humans do. We're talking about communication and
abilities to reason, and how those can be expressed. All you've
done is post a bit from a text book that doesn't even say what
you claim it does and then try to call the case closed.
Scott D. Erb
The poster shows a lack of understanding anyway about how
academia works if he thinks that linguists alone can answer that
question.
More importantly, though, the snippet from the text didn't even
support the claims he made. At best it expressed the claim that
in a study of chimps no discernible grammar was found, and that
theirfore the hypothesis that a language was being used was not
supported. That doesn't mean that no interactive communication
took place or that the animals weren't using reason to
communicate rudimentary concepts. Beyond that, such a conclusion
by the writer is based on his interpretation.
Alas, one often runs into a belief these days that if it is
written down it must be true, especially in a text book. I make
it a point when I teach to note places where I think a text book
is wrong just to get students to realize that a text book is an
author's interpretation and opinion, especially when it gets to
issues without clear cut answers. The poster says he's majoring
in math, so presumably he thinks other disciplines have clear cut
answers like math does. That is an obviously wrong assumption.
He also said departments approve textbooks. That can happen, but
I've never once had to have any of my texts approved, and I think
the standard is that instructors can choose what they want -- and
believe me, there is a variety of perspectives out there, with
linguistics being an especially contentious field!
John T. Kennedy
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote in message
>news:ueRKPB3cg2qQS1...@4ax.com...
>> In <a2dkgc$bi0$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net> "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Communication doesn't require technical expertise,...
>> >>
>> >> That's right, but *human life* does
>> >
>> >Uh, no it doesn't, brainiac. Unless you want to accuse newborns of
>> >technical expertise.
>
>Plus, of course, it completely removes the question from the realm it
>belonged to. Brain boy bounces from the foundational ability of
>communication to discussing electric wiring as though they have ANYTHING to
>do with one another. On that view, the Bushmen of Africa can't possibly
>speak, nor do five-year olds, the educably mentally retarded, the clinically
>insane, etc, etc.
>
>You people are utter morons.
How is a newborn life sustained in the absence of technical expertise?
-
John T. Kennedy III
No Treason - A Journal of Liberty
http://www.no-treason.com/
The Wild Shall Ever Wild Remain!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jtkennedy/itswhatitisnow.html