On Linguistics
I happened to stumble upon an interesting book "The origin of the Speeches" which takes a very non-Darwinistic and non-Linguistic approach to the research on the subject of the origin of languages. The author, being non-Linguist and not Eurocentric, brings a huge amount of examples that show how many languages of totally different language families share many basic root words (based on sound) and attribute the origin of all languages to a Semitic like language, close to the Biblical Hebrew.
I've discussed that theory with a friend who is a Linguist by trade (PhD in Linguistics.) That honest man listened to the arguments and began to bring counter arguments. At a certain moment I've asked, OK, let's dismiss any questionable method that the author is using, we are still left with a lot of examples. In that case how many examples would constitute a statistical proof? If we want to know the answer for that question, we should go to a Statistician who would consider all factors, like the number of languages involved in our samples, the number of words, etc. and we could come with a scientifically acceptable sample size that would establish a reasonable enough statistical fact.
To my surprise, the linguist said that for some reasons that he could not remember at the time, Linguistics deny the usage of Statistics in many cases, including that type of cases. Imagine that, there is a discipline which is by itself extremely speculative, that envision itself above all other sciences and on principle, would not accept regular established scientific methods to prove or disprove its theories. It would allow usage of Statistics only in a very narrow range that would not allow disproving the basis of that discipline itself. We are dealing with a group of people who call themselves scientists but they are above any other science (I have not heard before of any science that would intentionally limit the use of Statistics and would a-priori not accept any statistical prove if it oppose their speculations.)
To me, it's audacity in the highest form. I do not care whether the theory that was presented in the book that has initiated the conversation is correct or not. Really, who knows? I did not go to a statistician to check it. What bothers me is that no matter what, the Linguists would deny any attempt to a different approach on the circular argument that any such approach is wrong because... it is not their approach.
But coming to think about it and remembering who is the persona behind that science , one name Noam Chomsky, a virulent Communist, we could understand that all he does is to apply the tyrannical methods of the old Communist party to science. And the scientific truth, intellectual freedom and creativity... who needs them when Communism, Stalin and Chomsky's style is in control.
I've discussed that theory with a friend who is a Linguist by trade (PhD in Linguistics.) That honest man listened to the arguments and began to bring counter arguments. At a certain moment I've asked, OK, let's dismiss any questionable method that the author is using, we are still left with a lot of examples. In that case how many examples would constitute a statistical proof? If we want to know the answer for that question, we should go to a Statistician who would consider all factors, like the number of languages involved in our samples, the number of words, etc. and we could come with a scientifically acceptable sample size that would establish a reasonable enough statistical fact.
To my surprise, the linguist said that for some reasons that he could not remember at the time, Linguistics deny the usage of Statistics in many cases, including that type of cases. Imagine that, there is a discipline which is by itself extremely speculative, that envision itself above all other sciences and on principle, would not accept regular established scientific methods to prove or disprove its theories. It would allow usage of Statistics only in a very narrow range that would not allow disproving the basis of that discipline itself. We are dealing with a group of people who call themselves scientists but they are above any other science (I have not heard before of any science that would intentionally limit the use of Statistics and would a-priori not accept any statistical prove if it oppose their speculations.)
To me, it's audacity in the highest form. I do not care whether the theory that was presented in the book that has initiated the conversation is correct or not. Really, who knows? I did not go to a statistician to check it. What bothers me is that no matter what, the Linguists would deny any attempt to a different approach on the circular argument that any such approach is wrong because... it is not their approach.
But coming to think about it and remembering who is the persona behind that science , one name Noam Chomsky, a virulent Communist, we could understand that all he does is to apply the tyrannical methods of the old Communist party to science. And the scientific truth, intellectual freedom and creativity... who needs them when Communism, Stalin and Chomsky's style is in control.
posted by ZA at 11:16 אחה״צ
0 Comments:
הוסף רשומת תגובה
<< Home