Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Discussion Forums > Science

Science From your kid's science project to relativity, this is the place to discuss it.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 12:07 AM
Margot's Avatar
Margot Margot is offline
World Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,044
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind's Eye View Post
Re : the Ehrlenmeyer flask analogy.

A comparison with itself to a human brain is rather interesting. And comparing a chemical reaction to the way in which we process language is likewise.

However, none of us are working with clean labware. Both the flask and the brain are contaminated.

No one conducting such experiments can hypothesize accurately on either outcome.
So when you say something you don't expect a reaction? I mean, when I say "oh, I'm doing well, you?" I don't expect the response to be "JESUS FUCK! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?"

Please, what makes you think our lab equipment isn't clean? More importantly, if you think it is unclean, why aren't you striving to make it as clean as you can get it?
__________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!

For a good time call Judges 19:24-30
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 12:14 AM
WFCY's Avatar
WFCY WFCY is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margot View Post
So when you say something you don't expect a reaction? I mean, when I say "oh, I'm doing well, you?" I don't expect the response to be "JESUS FUCK! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?"

Please, what makes you think our lab equipment isn't clean? More importantly, if you think it is unclean, why aren't you striving to make it as clean as you can get it?
I dunno what you're trying to prove here in this thread Margot.

Just because something exhibit causal effect relation, does not mean it is science. Even scientology and dianetics exhibit certain causal effect relations- simply go take one of their "stress tests" off the streets by your nearest mall. They have all kinds of impressive theories about your life.

Just because speech, or language use, has a causal effect relation with the interlocutors' epistemic status, does not make it science. The criterion for science are set far higher as it is nowadays, but somehow yours remain in the bronze age. The claim just doesn't hold water.
__________________
"Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad."


Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

Last edited by WFCY; Aug 7th 2010 at 12:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 12:37 AM
Margot's Avatar
Margot Margot is offline
World Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,044
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by WFCY View Post
I dunno what you're trying to prove here in this thread Margot.

Just because something exhibit causal effect relation, does not mean it is science. Even scientology and dianetics exhibit certain causal effect relations- simply go take one of their "stress tests" off the streets by your nearest mall. They have all kinds of impressive theories about your life.

Just because speech, or language use, has a causal effect relation with the interlocutors' epistemic status, does not make it science. The criterion for science are set far higher as it is nowadays, but somehow yours remain in the bronze age. The claim just doesn't hold water.
wakka curvy necrophilia.. .rUnning running Runnin!!!!g liceeggs ofc frisky

I beg to differ. If you think that my science takes you back to the bronze age, your view of language takes you back into the trees (flinging poo, is, of course, still your prerogative).

Also, seems you still haven't answered my question.
__________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!

For a good time call Judges 19:24-30
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 01:53 AM
Mind's Eye's Avatar
Mind's Eye Mind's Eye is offline
Villager
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: 44° 22' 35" N, 88° 45' 6" W
Posts: 43
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind's Eye View Post
Re : the Ehrlenmeyer flask analogy.

A comparison with itself to a human brain is rather interesting. And comparing a chemical reaction to the way in which we process language is likewise.

However, none of us are working with clean labware. Both the flask and the brain are contaminated.

No one conducting such experiments can hypothesize accurately on either outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Margot View Post
So when you say something you don't expect a reaction? I mean, when I say "oh, I'm doing well, you?" I don't expect the response to be "JESUS FUCK! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?"

Please, what makes you think our lab equipment isn't clean? More importantly, if you think it is unclean, why aren't you striving to make it as clean as you can get it?
Of course I expect a reaction !
What that reaction is, however, remains beyond my control.

Our labware is contaminated simply by our having individual & unique experiences which shaped us into who we are. That cannot be undone.

Those experiences shape how we interpret stimuli.
__________________
My insights are wasted on most people.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 12:45 PM
Margot's Avatar
Margot Margot is offline
World Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,044
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind's Eye View Post
Of course I expect a reaction !
What that reaction is, however, remains beyond my control.

Our labware is contaminated simply by our having individual & unique experiences which shaped us into who we are. That cannot be undone.

Those experiences shape how we interpret stimuli.
Cultures of bacteria do not respond to stimuli in exactly the same way as one another. Does that change the stimuli?
__________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!

For a good time call Judges 19:24-30
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 03:04 PM
The Drunk Guy's Avatar
The Drunk Guy The Drunk Guy is offline
Bad Motherfucker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 'Round back
Posts: 2,339
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

I've put off my reply to this thread for too long, but here it is...

Language = natural process
Linguistics = science

Just that simple. Hell, I didn't even quote some boring asshole.
__________________
Vae, puto deus fio...
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 04:37 PM
WFCY's Avatar
WFCY WFCY is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunk Guy View Post
I've put off my reply to this thread for too long, but here it is...

Language = natural process
Linguistics = science

Just that simple. Hell, I didn't even quote some boring asshole.
just did for you.

welcome
__________________
"Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad."


Ernesto 'Che' Guevara
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 07:49 PM
Mind's Eye's Avatar
Mind's Eye Mind's Eye is offline
Villager
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: 44° 22' 35" N, 88° 45' 6" W
Posts: 43
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margot View Post
Cultures of bacteria do not respond to stimuli in exactly the same way as one another. Does that change the stimuli?
You're just not getting it.

Whether one compares the human mind to a flask, or now to bacteria, the result is the same. No two are alike.

And yes, the dis-similar responses do change the stimuli.
The stimuli changes in an attempt to elicit the preferred response.
__________________
My insights are wasted on most people.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old Aug 7th 2010, 08:43 PM
Margot's Avatar
Margot Margot is offline
World Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,044
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind's Eye View Post
You're just not getting it.

Whether one compares the human mind to a flask, or now to bacteria, the result is the same. No two are alike.

And yes, the dis-similar responses do change the stimuli.
The stimuli changes in an attempt to elicit the preferred response.
No, I get you clearly (mostly). I think you're wrong (entirely).

Does the dissimilar response change the stimuli, or does the stimuli change to elicit the response? You're saying two different things. Do you mean to?

"The stimuli changes in an attempt to elicit the preferred response" seems to indicate that you believe language to have a will of its own outside of its use as a tool by speakers. Is this true? Or are you considering the person to be the stimuli? This is fine, and valid, but not to this argument. "Language" is the noun we're aiming for, not "person."

Please give me an example of when a tool changes its inherent nature to elicit the response desired by the researcher. I'm seriously curious!
__________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!

For a good time call Judges 19:24-30
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old Aug 8th 2010, 01:38 PM
Mind's Eye's Avatar
Mind's Eye Mind's Eye is offline
Villager
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: 44° 22' 35" N, 88° 45' 6" W
Posts: 43
Default Re: Literal isn’t Lazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margot View Post
No, I get you clearly (mostly). I think you're wrong (entirely).

Does the dissimilar response change the stimuli, or does the stimuli change to elicit the response? You're saying two different things. Do you mean to?
Yes and yes.

If the identical use of language produces dis-similar results, the material & methods ( input ) must be revised to achieve conforming results. That is the definition of a successful science experiment after all - repeatable results.

And since this " experiment " is being conducted upon humans, I do not believe than any amount of revisions will be able to produce conforming results. Sure, we have tendencies, but nowhere near 100%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Margot
"The stimuli changes in an attempt to elicit the preferred response" seems to indicate that you believe language to have a will of its own outside of its use as a tool by speakers. Is this true? Or are you considering the person to be the stimuli? This is fine, and valid, but not to this argument. "Language" is the noun we're aiming for, not "person."

Please give me an example of when a tool changes its inherent nature to elicit the response desired by the researcher. I'm seriously curious!
A person's choice of words will, by necessity, change to suit the audience.

Language is akin to a bullit leaving a gun. Once it exits, control is lost. Sure, one knows what was intended but again how an audience receives the input is unknowable to the speaker.

Does one speak to a 3 year old the same as he or she speaks to a 33 year old ? I would hope not.

Does the environment in which one is conversing affect the choice of one's words ? I would hope so.


Language is not only a hammer, and our minds are not only a nail.
__________________
My insights are wasted on most people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com