Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Christopher Palmer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, vardi wrote:
>
> > > But what if act X might also lead to act Z, which is the right thing to
> > > do?
> >
> > Then of course you do it. To stay with the example I gave, if you need
> > the pen to open a hole in someone's throat to stop them choking, then it
> > is not only permissible but mandatory to use it, on Sabbath as at any
> > other time.
>
> That's easy to say, but if your mindset is one of closure to certain
> activities, it may be more difficult to act out.
>
> > > What's it like, being afraid of ideas? I've never known the feeling.
> >
> > I don't think that's really a fair or useful comment Christopher.
>
> Well, you did say "shy away from".
>
> > I don't think Tom Wier (whose contributions to this debate I've enjoyed
> > reading, even tho' I don't always agree) or myself have sat down, read
> > everything about this issue, weighed it up impassionately and come to
> > our positions; I certainly haven't.
>
> Speak for yourself. I did, in fact I have changed my position since I came
> to know more about natural language, and I did so rationally and
> impassionately. It's called 'science', and people are more or less capable
> of it.
>
> >  Rather I think we have a tendency to a given position, for whatever
> > reasons, and thus we are more receptive to research or positions that
> > reinforce or develop that position.
>
> That would be 'bad science'.
>
> > I'm not so concerned about the method used to STUDY something, but about
> > the method use to make JUDGMENTS about something.
>
> If your studies, whether scientific or otherwise, give you no way to make
> judgements about things in your life and environment, what good are they?
>
> > Scientific observations of complex cultural/social phenomena are a valid
> > approach but must be examined very, very carefully.
>
> Of course. Close examination is part of what makes them scientific --
> hypotheses are not accepted on faith, they're accepted or rejected by a
> process of falsification and repeatability, and therefore far more
> trustworthy.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
        String debates, the dominant form of net communication, often end up
with this kind of combative flavor. When I was a kid in England we
called it "stubbing you out."

        I think we've both stated our positions quite well. I see your position
as a rational, viable and coherent one (among many other possible
positions with the same and other qualities); whether you choose to take
the same or a different approach to what I've tried to say is obviously
entirely up to you.

        Conlanglikeg coluiereiin
        (In Conlangish friendship)

        Shaul Vardi