Previous Continued (on Quora, btw)

Creationism and Linguistics · Previous Continued (on Quora, btw)

Daniel Ross

10m ago

“Name one good scientist it doesn’t describe, I’ll probably prove your assessment of him wrong.”

We must make certain working assumptions just in order to do research, but a good scientist really does do that. If they don’t, then to that degree, they are not a good scientist.

One example is me. I’m a skeptic, but tentatively accept the best explanations currently available, until there is a better one. (I’m not claiming to be unique.)

You are certainly correct that many scientists seem to believe in their own work. But that’s actually a mistake (an easy one to make). I didn’t say it’s easy to be a good scientist.

Another example just to give a famous name would be Richard Feynman. He has some great lectures recorded on youtube if you want to watch them. You’ll see him explain this perspective (and others). Being a scientist is not about being right. It’s about examining the evidence to observe what cannot be right.
(Falsification.)

“The Balkan languages of IE family share features according to your hypothesis of both types.”

The Balkan languages do have both, yes. That’s not uncommon.

“The different look could be from different duration of a feature spreading by contact.”

No. Let’s compare this to cooking: you can tell if you boil shrimp or if you deep fry shrimp. You could also do both, and it would still be clear that you did both. It would be hard to know exactly what effects on the cooked shrimp were from one cooking method or another, but whether both methods were used would be clear.

“Dito, you are using IE protolang as a stick to beat the Bible with, rather than looking for possibilities.”

No, that’s absurd. I am “using the IE protolang” to understand language history. I have no interest in the Bible until someone brings is up as if it answers questions better than science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"We must make certain working assumptions just in order to do research, but a good scientist really does do that. If they don’t, then to that degree, they are not a good scientist."

And as long as working assumptions continue to work with the data, the scientist is keeping them.

That is what I mean. Instead of complaining on my doing that, how about showing a fact (verifiable by present observation as opposed to only by reconstruction) where my Biblical and Catholic world view would no longer be working.

"One example is me. I’m a skeptic, but tentatively accept the best explanations currently available, until there is a better one. (I’m not claiming to be unique.)"

So far, you have been using the explanations that best fit the belief systems of the sect labelled sceptics.

"You are certainly correct that many scientists seem to believe in their own work. But that’s actually a mistake (an easy one to make). I didn’t say it’s easy to be a good scientist."

Ah, nice admission.

"Another example just to give a famous name would be Richard Feynman. He has some great lectures recorded on youtube if you want to watch them. You’ll see him explain this perspective (and others). Being a scientist is not about being right. It’s about examining the evidence to observe what cannot be right.
(Falsification.)"

For one thing, the Bible tells me certain things in your view (like 15 000 BC or BP, whichever) cannot be right. Now, to Feynmann.

He is a great teacher, which is how he came to spread this science ideology, which is from Popper. I have used his teaching methodology in order to bring home the concept of "carbon rise", so alien to evolition believers.

But what exact scientific discovery has he made? How is he a “great scientist”, note well, scientist, not science ideologer or teacher?

As to the rest:

• You have not given any kind of evidence of how a cohabitation previous than the post-Antiquity on Balkan (and prior by thousands of years) would differ from a prior language unity (also prior by thousand years).
• You have just admitted an Anti-Biblical bias. You don't go to the Bible to look for ANY kind of answers, apart from Hebrew linguistics, I suppose, not even as I would go to Greek or Hindu Epics. You get upset when someone believes "Bible over science". This clinches what I already said about you : you are a believer, as I am, and with beliefs opposed to mine.

Daniel Ross

34m ago

“And as long as working assumptions continue to work with the data, the scientist is keeping them.”

No. We temporarily make assumptions. One reason some scientists should not be classified as “good scientists” is because instead of keeping their options open, they settle on those temporary assumptions as beliefs. A good scientist, however, just uses those temporary assumptions to explore the data in order to limit the possible variables— we can’t consider all possibilities at one time.

There are of course some general trends that remain because they seem to work. But if you ask a scientist if they believe their theories, there are four possible reasons they might say yes:

• 1) It’s the best known explanation, so they tentatively believe it until a better one is found.
• 2) There seems to be a general consensus, beyond a reasonable doubt, that some understandings are reasonable. This belief is practical rather than fundamental, but it can come across that way if people keep insisting on non-scientific explanations for things (say, astrology instead of astronomy).
• 3) They intend “believe” in the sense of “trust” or “choose”, see (1). This is generally in response to the non-technical sense of “believe” as in “Do you believe this medicine will work?”
• 4) They are bad scientists who believe their theories. Honestly, some scientists do fit in that category because they’ve invested a lot in their theories, especially after long careers. Easy mistake.

Daniel Ross

23m ago

This clinches what I already said about you : you are a believer, as I am, and with beliefs opposed to mine.

I think belief should be personal, while science should be as objective as possible. I do disagree with you, but that shouldn’t have any bearing on this discussion, which I am trying but failing to keep objective. (Note: I edited to try to make it not confrontational about your beliefs.)

You do not have the book. You have a book. And having a book does not give you any credibility except to those who have already chosen that book.

I don’t have any problem with your book. But it is absurd to think it should be inherently privileged. Why is your book special? You think so. Why should I?

The default position for all religions is disbelief. You can in fact only be a true believer by not believing all of the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Answering both omments at once:

"No. We temporarily make assumptions. One reason some scientists should not be classified as “good scientists” is because instead of keeping their options open, they settle on those temporary assumptions as beliefs. A good scientist, however, just uses those temporary assumptions to explore the data in order to limit the possible variables— we can’t consider all possibilities at one time."

We can.

It is done in the type of discourse known as philosophy. Leaving out any possibility from consideration is a major no no in philosophy. Until it is soundly refuted.

And ruling a thing out is more often done by its contradicting someone's belief than by its contradicting clearly in and of itself a certain experiment or ither indisputable raw datum.

Btw, if your assumptions are temporary, so far, why not take the time to explore beyond them, when I give the opportunity?

Could it be, your assumptions have settled to beliefs?

The problem on my view is not they were not taken as temporary, but that they were wrong.

"It’s the best known explanation, so they tentatively believe it until a better one is found."

Alias, it is the best according to their belief, not identified as such and they will believe it until a better one within their beliefs is found.

"They are bad scientists who believe their theories."

I was not speaking about theories to be tested, but about assumptions behhind them.

As to scientists believing their theories, I would put in this category:

• Galileo (up to recanting),
• Lyell,
• Darwin,
• Brothers Grimm,
• Newton.

In other words, what you could qualify as social top layer of science. Not one single of them was a Popperite.

"There seems to be a general consensus, beyond a reasonable doubt, that some understandings are reasonable."

And the general consensus is one among the community dubbing itself as scientific, and the doubts of outsiders are claimed to be unreasonable, or more usually "unscientific" (i e discording with science as belief system)

"They intend “believe” in the sense of “trust” or “choose”, see (1). This is generally in response to the non-technical sense of “believe” as in “Do you believe this medicine will work?”"

How is this different from belief in general?

"You do not have the book. You have a book. And having a book does not give you any credibility except to those who have already chosen that book."

This is a faulty analysis of what my position is.

It is also getting outside objective argument about evidential value of Biblical history and into personal social innuendo about the one and the other.

I have NOT chosen Homer or Mahabharata as THE book. And even so, I would not even dream of ditching the history in it (as opposed to the theology) in terms similar to your dissing of the Bible.

"I don’t have any problem with your book. But it is absurd to think it should be inherently privileged. Why is your book special? You think so. Why should I?"

I was appealing to historic information in it. If you want to compare to historic information in other ancient legends, fine with me. I will "privilege" the Bible, if you like, you need not.

What I am "asking" is why you prefer an explanation at variance with it.

We could discuss that one linguistics, you have limited yourself to generalities, as if my belief disqualified me of discussing linguistics.

We could discuss it on general other terms, you have not given much.

You seem to prefer taking belief in the Bible as privileged proof one is wrong. That would in normal analysis amount to your actually having a problem with it.

"The default position for all religions is disbelief. You can in fact only be a true believer by not believing all of the others."

No, the default position is the belief you grew up with. You do not change it except by what you take as very good evidence. And evolutionism has been my belief system, up to nine.

Also, you are now discussing the Bible under the heading "religion", while I am discussing it under the heading "history". Just because its being inerrant history to me, according to my religion, does that mean it has to be non-history to you?

The default position for getting to the past is believing the narratives we have from it. Some exclude others.

But narrative, unless refuted, primes over reconstruction.

My claim in relation to your general claim, is simply, I am believing the narratives (including to much greater extent than you, non-Biblical and anti-Biblical ones, except where they are anti-Biblical) where you for some reason have ditched narrative and chosen reconstruction instead.

Bad methodology, even if you happened otherwise to be right.

Daniel Ross

Just now

“We can.”

No. Even philosophers write one argument at a time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

They write one argument at a time, indeed, but one of the arguments they do write is an enumeration of all possibilities.

Then they cross one out at a time.

They do not for instance limit research to two possibilities united by one term, unless already having excluded opposite of that term.

Daniel Ross

1m ago

That’s simply not true. Philosophers write one sentence at a time, and there are only a certain number of sentences on each page, in each paper, in each book. They cannot possibly consider all possibilities.

They are open to all possibilities, but so are scientists.

Operationalizing an experiment or making an argument in philosophy (for example, a hypothetical scenario like famous thought experiments) requires very precise limitations.

I’m not saying that scientists don’t think about all possibilities. I’m saying that we use experiments (or similar methods) to determine relationships one step at a time. You simply can’t vary everything all at once and make sense of it.

This is a basic and obvious fact. I’m not sure why we are discussing it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"Philosophers write one sentence at a time, and there are only a certain number of sentences on each page, in each paper, in each book. They cannot possibly consider all possibilities."

They can consider all possibilities on a certain limited topic.

You can never enumerate all possibilities on all topics in a page long sentence, but you can certainly enumerate all possibilities of any given topic.

As to excluding the possibilities one by one (if "in a group" is usually sub-possibilities of one possibility) that is done in subsequent sentences.

"Operationalizing an experiment or making an argument in philosophy (for example, a hypothetical scenario like famous thought experiments) requires very precise limitations."

Nice, but the thing is, each of the already enumerated possibilities can be regarded (in operational experimental ways or other) in very precise limitations of its being the possibility or possibilital parameter it is and not another one.

In turn.

"I’m not saying that scientists don’t think about all possibilities."

You just did, a few comments back.

"You simply can’t vary everything all at once and make sense of it."

I never said one could, you are strawmanning me.

For one thing, all the possibilities need not be decided by arranged experiment, some can be decided against by inherent contradiction in terms, detected, like you are trying to do with my proposal that you should be open to the creationist possibility by saying this cannot be operationally decided.

I did say one can :

• step 1, enumerate all possibilities, not just the ones that suit your scope,
• step 2, start eliminating possibilities one by one,
• corollary, not dismiss a possibility before it is soundly refuted, which you are doing with Creationist view of linguistics, at least one of them.
• step 3, at each well merited dismissal not present one single position as the scientific one, until it is really the only one left, but present which possibilities are in fact left.

"This is a basic and obvious fact. I’m not sure why we are discussing it."

Because you were missing out on what that basic and obvious fact means and doesn't necessarily mean.

Daniel Ross

37m ago

“They can consider all possibilities on a certain limited topic.”

“All possibilities” in a philosophical sense would mean infinitely many. That doesn’t make sense. For example, if you want to find out why cats purr, you might first consider that they are actually robots controlled by Martians. (I’m referring to a real philosophical paper, about the philosophy of language, although the discussion was not about cats purring. The point is that’s one additional possibility to consider…) Obviously we need to strategically pick things to concentrate on.

”You just did, a few comments back.”

No. I said we make tentative working assumptions in order to address specific points. That’s necessary. But scientists do choose those questions from all possible questions, and many of them spend a lot more time thinking than actually running experiments.

This is getting nonsensical as well as tedious. I’m just responding to this most incorrect things I see, and I’m not sure it’s clarifying anything.

—

Finally, if you insist on me considering the Bible to be a reasonable perspective on the origin of languages, I will agree with you on one condition: you edit your answer to say “Sorry, we have absolutely no idea about anything, because all perspectives are equally valid.” Then I’ll accept that the Bible is a relevant perspective to this discussion. The burden of proof, otherwise, is on you.

In the end, I think it’s time to end this discussion with an anecdote:

My first day as a grad student, in my historical linguistics class, the instructor casually mentioned something about the early history of human languages. Another student raised his hand and very sincerely, eagerly asked “Will we be learning about the language spoken by Adam and Eve?” The instructor was confused by the question and did not know how exactly to reply. On the one hand, the student’s beliefs were valid. On the other, that was simply outside the scope of what could be addressed by linguistics as a science. I think he said something like “That’s not covered by the syllabus” and moved on. By the way, interestingly, the student in question was not Christian. He was Muslim. (Not a coincidence, of course, since like Judaism the two religions have the same broad origin.)

Anyway, I don’t know how to answer that question either. Unless it’s in the Bible, I don’t think I will convince you. Especially if what I say conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"For example, if you want to find out why cats purr, you might first consider that they are actually robots controlled by Martians."

That would fall under the consideration of cats being robots, you need not consider cats being robots controlled by Martians separately from robots being controlled by Venusians from robots controlled by etc.

Then that consideration would include the presupposition of cats not being what they seem.

This is already excluded in a philosophy admitting of belief in normal observations, like those leading us to believe cats are not robots and, those leading us to believe historical narratives are more or less to be believed, and not just swept out of all considerations before starting the historical question over again with a reconstruction from scratch not taking any of them into account.

"(I’m referring to a real philosophical paper,"

I don't know what you mean by "real philosophical paper", do you mean it was really from faculty of Philosophy? That would make it a real paper within the Russellian type of philosophy.

"The point is that’s one additional possibility to consider…) Obviously we need to strategically pick things to concentrate on."

Not very much, since it is not on the topic of cats and purring per se, but on the topic of Matrix.

"No. I said we make tentative working assumptions in order to address specific points. That’s necessary."

What is necessary is actually to make each possibility in turn a very temporary working assumption while adressing it.

Philosophically, that is.

"But scientists do choose those questions from all possible questions, and many of them spend a lot more time thinking than actually running experiments."

The problem is they are not chosing all possible questions in turn, they are dissing certain of the questions.

"This is getting nonsensical as well as tedious. I’m just responding to this most incorrect things I see, and I’m not sure it’s clarifying anything."

You are clarifying that you are out of your depth with a discourse which is made by someone outside your scientific paradigm, and also that you are mistaking it for basic philosophical necessity when really it is not.

"Finally, if you insist on me considering the Bible to be a reasonable perspective on the origin of languages, I will agree with you on one condition: you edit your answer to say “Sorry, we have absolutely no idea about anything, because all perspectives are equally valid.” Then I’ll accept that the Bible is a relevant perspective to this discussion. The burden of proof, otherwise, is on you."

I was giving the Biblical perspective, and I think it is valid and can be shown valid:

• as one possibility on Tower of Babel item,
• as ONLY possibility, or one of two neither of which is evolutionist, on the item of God crating Adam with a language.

This does not in any way equate to all possibilities being equally valid. It does not in any way equate to nobody knowing anything about anything.

And your thinking it does, means you do have a real problem with the Bible. Perhaps because scepticism mean to you definite non-belief in Christianity, or perhap because your "temporary working hypothesis" is really no longer any such thing, but your belief system.

"In the end, I think it’s time to end this discussion with an anecdote:"

You are very free to make the comment your last. You are also very free to start the discussion again when you see I responded things you did not expect. Whichever you wish.

"On the one hand, the student’s beliefs were valid. On the other, that was simply outside the scope of what could be addressed by linguistics as a science."

While I agree linguistics cannot (but theology can) prove which language Adam and Eve spoke (and it was neither Arabic nor Sanskrit), I do not agree linguistics can prove a language was spoken 6000 or 15 000 years ago.

That is also outside linguistics where it is truly scientific.

If you really wish to state why the relation between Germanic and Hittite cannot be Sprachbund, say so. I'll be happy to discuss it, I would probably be a sore loser if a loser, but I don't expect to be. That would be a strictly speaking linguistic discussion, which you have given a bit little of.

You can also try to bone out how much of your scenario of 6000 years ago is due to the PIE and how much is due to the carbon date of Yamnaya.

That would not be a purely linguistic discussion, but it would involve material I could perhaps find useful, if I should lose on the linguistic discussion. Another thing you have not been doing.

If you are tired of discussing science ideology, fine.

"Unless it’s in the Bible, I don’t think I will convince you."

Totally false, my identification of Göbekli Tepe with Babel is not per se in the Bible. My recalibration of Göbekli Tepe from 9600 BC to 8600 BC on the one hand to 2551 BC to 2511 BC (sorry, mistook beginning year to end year of Babel a few comments ago) is also not in the Bible.

It is attempting to match both the Bible and ALL scientific actual evidence, if not main stream conclusions.

"Especially if what I say conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible."

Unless I come to think of another interpretation as equally valid in the literal sense.

Obviously, I have already said, the Bible is valid as history, even if it were not as theology (but it is), and barring the total inerrance of the actual word of God I believe, a real openminded philosopher would at least give it a huge favourable view as to history.

This means, an interpretation of the Bible as "religiously valid but historically invalid" is not the least interesting to me. It is also not very intuitive.

It is thousand times more intuitive to say, since there is one true religion, or one truth, that all accounts have some historic value (Bible, Homer, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Amerindian accounts on Sipapuni etc) while the exact amount of trust given one over other is a further theological question, perhaps aided by a historic investigation on well chosen points.