A little Dialogue between Red and Teo about forum and debate etiquette

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: A little Dialogue between Red and Teo about forum and debate etiquette

Post by teo123 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:13 am

Red wrote:I thought you were referring to laws in the legal sense, not the scientific (or phonetic) sense, so that threw me off.
How could you actually think that when, according to dictionary.com, "sound law" can only mean "phonetic law"?
Red wrote:Anyway, I never said that phonetic laws cannot be falsified, that's just something you put into my mouth.
Indeed you did say that sound laws (such as those) were unfalsifiable and that linguistics is a soft science because of that. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's what you said and that's what I was trying to respond to for pages.
So, why do you actually think linguistics is a soft science? And don't say again that linguistic journals accept anything and everything, my last paper I tried to publish in a linguistic journal got rejected. If you ask me, the reasons they gave me are not at all justified, but you can't say they simply accept anything and everything.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:31 pm

teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:13 am
How could you actually think that when, according to dictionary.com, "sound law" can only mean "phonetic law"?
Context is everything. We were talking about legal laws (something you disagreed with). Clarify something like that next time (not just for me, but for other people you will debate with).
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:13 am
Indeed you did say that sound laws (such as those) were unfalsifiable and that linguistics is a soft science because of that.
Where?
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:13 am
Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's what you said and that's what I was trying to respond to for pages.
I thought this thread was just a dialogue about forum and debate etiquette?
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:13 am
So, why do you actually think linguistics is a soft science?
:roll: You're in a debate with brimstone on another thread which addresses this question. Go back and read the first few pages of that thread. For your convenience, I will copy and paste some of the key points made.
brimstoneSalad wrote: You can't compare that kind of historical linguistics to hard sciences like that. Figuring out where a word came from is more like putting together a crime-scene; it's using limited circumstantial evidence (particularly pre-DNA) to make plausible assumptions...

A science would be more like asking which regions of the brain different words stimulate in a certain population and mapping their relatedness based on that. Or looking at usage and doing some kind of statistical analysis of relative syntactic positions in the body of extant work in a language. Questions of testable contemporary fact, not ancient history based on plausible guesses. These are things you may very well be able to revolutionize with your interest in computer science and linguistics. Look at the cross-over where you can evaluate linguistic concepts with hard experiment, and you'll be able to overturn classical linguistic practice...

Even if that observation increased or decreased the probability of a theory being true, because you may have already known of the lack of presence of these words, it creates a formulation bias and doesn't increase the probability of YOUR theory being true.

You need to study more of how statistics work in science, P-hacking, etc.
Probability can be very counter-intuitive. It's much like the Monty Hall problem. ONLY observations made after the formulation of the theory affect its probability of being true (and that's only if those observations very strongly reflect on the probability of the theory being true, IOW if they would actually prove it false and not be trivial to explain away like the lack of presence of "issa")...
You get the idea.

Look, Teo, I don't mean to disrespect the field of linguistics, I try to find value in all fields of knowledge. Maybe you can help harden linguistics so it won't be a soft science anymore?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am

I have some spare time, so I will respond here.
Red wrote:Context is everything.
I said "Both Jebus and BrimstoneSalad (in his latest post in the thread) admitted that my knowledge of linguistics is impressive. It's just that, if you keep insisting that sound laws are somehow not falsifiable, there is not much more to talk about.". So, it should have been obvious to any reasonable person I was using the term "sound law" to mean a type of a linguistic law, which is also the only sense of the term the dictionary cites.
So, no, you can't just say you misunderstood me because of the context. This "misunderstanding" is also hardly explicable as you being unaware of the 5th-grade linguistics (unless you were also unaware that the term "law" is used in linguistics the way it's used in most sciences), the simplest explanation is that you were intentionally misrepresenting me. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Red wrote:Where?
That's not really relevant. If that doesn't represent your position, then perhaps you should try harder to explain your position, rather than argue about my reading skills.
Red wrote:For your convenience, I will copy and paste some of the key points made.
Most of the points there are nonsense, and even BrimstoneSalad admitted that recently.
Red wrote:I try to find value in all fields of knowledge. 
So, you are saying linguistics isn't a real science and isn't valuable? Then practice what you preach and stop using all the machine translation software, optical character recognition software, speech recognition software and everything else brought to you by linguistics.
You are being worse than a creationist here. Creationists at least draw that (nonexistant) distinction between historical science and experimental science, you are not even doing that.
Legitimate criticism of science requires a basic understanding of it. You don't need to be a PhD linguist to legitimately criticize linguistics, but you can't legitimately criticize linguistics if you are unaware of the 5th-grade linguistics (as you, Red, seem to be).
Red wrote:Maybe you can help harden linguistics so it won't be a soft science anymore?
If you are talking about the Croatian toponyms, the main reason that field is softer than many fields of linguistics is because the reasearch there is often done by people who don't understand linguistics at all. I tried to publish a paper mathematically modelling the Croatian toponyms, but my paper was rejected as unclear... without having been reviewed by an actual linguist. The papers about Croatian toponyms are, in many journals, reviewed by ethnologists and historians, who are convinced they understand how languages work (and how science works), but they don't even have the vocabulary needed to discuss that. And that's what makes it difficult to "harden" that field of study.
Also, let's be honest, it's quite possible that the way I mathematically modelled the Croatian toponyms is very flawed and that it would, if published, just poison that field even more. My calculations could be misleading, to me, and even more so to the historians who "study" the Croatian toponyms, since they may not realize how dubious the assumptions I made when mathematically modelling the toponyms are.
See the problem now?
In other words, I am dealing with a bunch of people who, just like you, don't understand the basic linguistics and know so much that isn't so.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:42 pm

By the way, @Red, do you think it makes sense that this forum insists its users be good at English? Why English? English is such a hard language to learn. Doesn't it make much more sense to require people to be good at Esperanto? Esperanto is at least a language that's designed to be easy to learn, English isn't.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:57 pm

teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
I said "Both Jebus and BrimstoneSalad (in his latest post in the thread) admitted that my knowledge of linguistics is impressive. It's just that, if you keep insisting that sound laws are somehow not falsifiable, there is not much more to talk about.". So, it should have been obvious to any reasonable person I was using the term "sound law" to mean a type of a linguistic law, which is also the only sense of the term the dictionary cites.
We were talking about laws in the legal sense, and you said how the social sciences have helped you conclude that laws aren't useful, then you brought this up out of nowhere, so it threw me off. I think it's an honest error, and I don't appreciate you lambasting me for it.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, but you're being incredibly rude because I made a mistake. Is this how you treat people in real life? If so, I don't see you being able to have many friends (I don't mean this as an insult, I am dead serious).
teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
So, no, you can't just say you misunderstood me because of the context.
Now you're calling me a liar, huh? Real chivalrous of you.

See Hanlon's Razor. Do not assume malice when it can easily be explained by incompetence/stupidity.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
his "misunderstanding" is also hardly explicable as you being unaware of the 5th-grade linguistics (unless you were also unaware that the term "law" is used in linguistics the way it's used in most sciences), the simplest explanation is that you were intentionally misrepresenting me. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
What? You just said "you can't just say you misunderstood me because of the context," now you're giving me the benefit of the doubt? Just don't be doing that shit to begin with.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
Most of the points there are nonsense, and even BrimstoneSalad admitted that recently.
Where?
teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
So, you are saying linguistics isn't a real science and isn't valuable?
I'm not saying that, asshole. I am saying it is a soft science, and I literally said I try to find value in every field of knowledge.

Not every field of knowledge has a significant amount of uses, and even things I'm interested in fall under that category, such as history.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
Then practice what you preach and stop using all the machine translation software, optical character recognition software, speech recognition software and everything else brought to you by linguistics.
:lol: I can taste the salt from here.
I don't use any of those on a regular basis, but that doesn't matter, because, as I just said:
Red wrote:I try to find value in every field of knowledge.
And I also said that I don't mean to disrespect the field of linguistics. I would like for linguistics to be hard as to maximize utility.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
You are being worse than a creationist here. Creationists at least draw that (nonexistant) distinction between historical science and experimental science, you are not even doing that.
WTF are you talking about?
teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
Legitimate criticism of science requires a basic understanding of it. You don't need to be a PhD linguist to legitimately criticize linguistics, but you can't legitimately criticize linguistics if you are unaware of the 5th-grade linguistics (as you, Red, seem to be).
Wow, you really are a piece of shit. You just said you gave me the benefit of the doubt, but you're still going on about it?
teo123 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
If you are talking about the Croatian toponyms, the main reason that field is softer than many fields of linguistics is because the reasearch there is often done by people who don't understand linguistics at all. I tried to publish a paper mathematically modelling the Croatian toponyms, but my paper was rejected as unclear... without having been reviewed by an actual linguist. The papers about Croatian toponyms are, in many journals, reviewed by ethnologists and historians, who are convinced they understand how languages work (and how science works), but they don't even have the vocabulary needed to discuss that. And that's what makes it difficult to "harden" that field of study.
Also, let's be honest, it's quite possible that the way I mathematically modelled the Croatian toponyms is very flawed and that it would, if published, just poison that field even more. My calculations could be misleading, to me, and even more so to the historians who "study" the Croatian toponyms, since they may not realize how dubious the assumptions I made when mathematically modelling the toponyms are.
So you admit that it's a soft science?

I'm gonna go ahead and lock this thread, since we're getting increasingly pissed off at each other, and it's wasting a lot of time (and overall just wasted words). I assume most of this is just a misunderstanding, and if Teo is willing to discuss this in a more organized and civilized manner, I think we'd be open to it.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests