teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:36 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote:Of course she thinks there's something to your work: you're actually trying to be rigorous.
So, do you also think there is something to my work now? And do you agree now that your comments about how I'm doing a "pudding soft science, if it is science at all" were unjustified, insulting and counter-productive?
I don't think I said there wasn't anything to your work (soft science is not nothing). You need to stop putting words in my mouth.
However, trying is not succeeding.
It's possible that even a Flat-Earther is doing good hard science, it's just unlikely.
Given that:
1. The field you're publishing in is soft science (thus making it the default assumption that your work is also)
4. You don't understand the difference between hard and soft science (thus making it implausible that you would be doing harder science by accident)
3. You don't understand advanced mathematics (which makes it nearly impossible for you to do hard science even if you knew what it was)
I think my assumption was a pretty safe one.
Add to that the fact that professional linguists have told you it's very unlikely that you're correct, and well...
Was my rebuke unjustified? I think you need to look at the context.
I believe I made it in response to your very arrogant claim suggesting that because you have published papers in linguistics that you "know something" about science generally, and specifically in reference to hard science knowledge.
It was a silly claim that I'm still waiting for you to realize was silly. Only
slightly less silly than a gender studies major saying the same thing.
Was my rebuke counter-productive? Teo, I'm pretty sure every conversation with you is counter-productive.
You're young so it may seem like such a
long time ago to you, but to me I schooled you in basic epistemology yesterday when you were a Flat-Earther and thought Occam's razor meant airplanes didn't exist. Then as soon as you got clear of Flat-Earth nonsense you dove head-first into extreme "murder should be legal" anarchism proving you STILL don't understand basic epistemology. The conviction with which you hold every one of these nonsense beliefs is amazing and would make for a great case study in the Dunning Kruger effect.
And today you think you're going to school me on what science is when you haven't even finished school yourself yet? No sir.
Was my rebuke insulting? I imagine so, given what you believe of yourself, but sometimes people need a little sense slapped into them. I'm sorry to see I've failed to do that with you yet again.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:23 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote:There's a huge difference between something being an established field of hard science, and using "hard sciencey" seeming tools to do something soft and claiming it makes it hard.
Don't you think that's exactly what's going on in economics? That much of economics is even worse than glottochronology, that it just uses advanced mathematics in order make itself harder to understand by laymen, while not even being theoretically falsifiable (Keynesian policies failing again and again didn't take it out of "mainstream" economics)?
I already covered this.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:23 pmBut how can you be sure of that? How can you be sure that glottochronology is pseudoscience? If you come from natural sciences, that idea will seem rather natural to you, wouldn't it? You need to understand linguistics along with mathematics to understand that.
It wasn't, but one of the core premises was found to be unreliable: languages change at different rates.
It could still be revived if we find ways to predict these rates of change. Seems implausible, though.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:23 pmParticularly at your claim about how people from hard sciences are somehow justified to speak on the issues of soft sciences without seriously studying them.
Stop straw-manning me Teo, this is your last warning.
Nobody can speak on any specific issue without some study, my point was entirely about methodology. I made that very clear. It's a question of the tools these fields use. Somebody from a soft science may have a poor understanding of how experimentation works when the field is primarily observation and establishing correlations in data sets.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:23 pm
There are other ways of establishing rigour, like, in this case, not proposing etymologies that contradict the laws of grammar (primarily sound laws).
I'm sure Flat-Earthers are rigorous too when they try not to contradict themselves with their ad hoc hypotheses. Attempting
only not to contradict yourself is the crudest form of rigor: that is, not rigorous in any scientifically meaningful sense.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:23 pm
Sometimes, yes, that rigour is unjustified and counter-productive, and you perhaps need to understand some mathematics along with linguistics to understand exactly why, but that's not to say one who doesn't understand math can't make scientific claims.
I didn't say that, somebody who doesn't understand much math can make *soft science* claims.
The degree of rigor there is a major point of distinction. If you don't understand mathematics, you can't make any serious new claims in a hard science.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:23 pmbrimstoneSalad wrote:As such, somebody studied in a hard science is qualified to understand soft science, but somebody studied in soft science is not qualified to understand hard science.
See, to everyone outside of that cult here, this is an insane assertion. And you will have a very hard time finding a scientist to agree with it.
You clearly have no idea what the words I used there mean. I'm obviously speaking in terms of the generalized fields and their methodologies, not specific empirical facts or theories being intuited magically without study. This is even more clear given the context and what I have been explaining to you repeatedly.
It's much the same as somebody who works in calculus being capable of understanding mere algebra, even if the person is unfamiliar with a certain proof the basic functions there are familiar and it's fairly straight forward to be introduced to specific work. Somebody who works with and has only learned algebra is not remotely qualified to understand proofs involving calculus.
This is the situation you find yourself in with hard sciences, and your arrogant claim about knowing something about them is as if somebody were referencing calculus and you replied that you "know something about math" generally because you took an algebra class.
I can't explain any more clearly how silly you're being, and yet you're incapable of understanding it because you don't even know what you don't know.