Reggie,
Of course there is duality in science but your statement "There are very many brilliant people who have arrived at the 'right' answer with no emprical work, but they are very very rare" is contradictory.
Either there is a large number of brilliant people or not.
The OED's first definition of "many" is "numerous". You add the word "very" to emphasise "many". You then use the word "rare" (OED definition few and far between, uncommon, unusual, exceptional) backed by an emphatic "very very".
So, to use both terms about the same group of people IS contradictory.
What do you mean by me "playing with words"? I'm not playing with words I'm stating a view, backed by facts.
You continue to bang on with repeated statements of your opinion without factual references.
I'm sure you can provide evidence of Chomsky's work in linguistics being challenged but where is the evidence of the work being overlooked or removed from the body of authentic research? Where has an institution removed an honour from him because of the lack of experimentation, detailed and observable research and quantifiable conclusions, or on the basis that his work is so badly flawed its outcomes cannot be sustained?
I suspect you just disagree with him and are boringly repeating your stance in the face of facts.
Jews? What is a Jew?
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> You sometimes have people such as Einstein and Hawking who are
> so brilliant that they gradually abandon empirical work because
> they work purely by insight. These people are exceedingly rare
> and their ideas are not always accepted because there is no
> empirical work to back them up.
I don't think that's an accurate reflection of science. It is not uncommon in science to work largely theoretically, i.e. create a mathematical model and only 'experiment' with that model. But that does not mean that the concrete empirical work is abandoned. The empirical work is necessary to check the predictions of the model and if there is a mismatch it's back to square 1. Today this is a bit more trial and error (as opposed to deep insight) than it used to be in Einstein's times (or even Chomsky's heydays), because the computer can 'run' the model for you, so it's relatively cheap to meddle the model.
Testing scientific theories of language acquisition is a bit problematic, as (on an experimental level) it would require experiments with humans which are unethical. That dilemma poses a risk for sciences such as psychology or educational science in that it creates a temptation for scientists to be rather dogmatic, i.e. create a theory (=dogma) of their own liking that is not immediately refutable by known data, without actually ever examining the backbones of their theory properly.
I certainly noticed that in educational science when studying some of its literature: lots of researchers there were making no empirical studies of their own, and every so often they would quote some known study from the literature to give a point they were making some respectability. A systematic analysis of the theories put forward was nowhere to be seen.
> You sometimes have people such as Einstein and Hawking who are
> so brilliant that they gradually abandon empirical work because
> they work purely by insight. These people are exceedingly rare
> and their ideas are not always accepted because there is no
> empirical work to back them up.
I don't think that's an accurate reflection of science. It is not uncommon in science to work largely theoretically, i.e. create a mathematical model and only 'experiment' with that model. But that does not mean that the concrete empirical work is abandoned. The empirical work is necessary to check the predictions of the model and if there is a mismatch it's back to square 1. Today this is a bit more trial and error (as opposed to deep insight) than it used to be in Einstein's times (or even Chomsky's heydays), because the computer can 'run' the model for you, so it's relatively cheap to meddle the model.
Testing scientific theories of language acquisition is a bit problematic, as (on an experimental level) it would require experiments with humans which are unethical. That dilemma poses a risk for sciences such as psychology or educational science in that it creates a temptation for scientists to be rather dogmatic, i.e. create a theory (=dogma) of their own liking that is not immediately refutable by known data, without actually ever examining the backbones of their theory properly.
I certainly noticed that in educational science when studying some of its literature: lots of researchers there were making no empirical studies of their own, and every so often they would quote some known study from the literature to give a point they were making some respectability. A systematic analysis of the theories put forward was nowhere to be seen.
-
Mysteryman
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
Reggie wrote:
"I was being generous in my estmation and expressed myself badly and it was late so I said the opposite of what I meant, a bit like mirror-writing. There are of course very few people who arrive at the right answer purely by insight. Chomsky is not one of them. Nice of you to go on and on because I put the wrong word in the worng place, very fair-minded of you."
I didn't go on and on, merely pointed out your error and why it was an error. Perhaps you should read and check your posts before hitting the button!
Now, back to basics. I stated that Chomsky is one of the most celebrated Jewish individuals of our time. You rubbished this statement, viz: "Noam Chomsky is hardly a celebrated intellectual".
I have backed my statement with facts, based on the acclamation of his peers and the honours he has received.
In response you have continued to try to diminish his standing, based solely on your estimation, without any hard evidence to back up your contention - which is, of course, what you accuse Chomsky of doing.
As far as I'm concerned there is little point in continuing this debate. You have a view, you are entitled to it, incorrect in fact as it is.
"I was being generous in my estmation and expressed myself badly and it was late so I said the opposite of what I meant, a bit like mirror-writing. There are of course very few people who arrive at the right answer purely by insight. Chomsky is not one of them. Nice of you to go on and on because I put the wrong word in the worng place, very fair-minded of you."
I didn't go on and on, merely pointed out your error and why it was an error. Perhaps you should read and check your posts before hitting the button!
Now, back to basics. I stated that Chomsky is one of the most celebrated Jewish individuals of our time. You rubbished this statement, viz: "Noam Chomsky is hardly a celebrated intellectual".
I have backed my statement with facts, based on the acclamation of his peers and the honours he has received.
In response you have continued to try to diminish his standing, based solely on your estimation, without any hard evidence to back up your contention - which is, of course, what you accuse Chomsky of doing.
As far as I'm concerned there is little point in continuing this debate. You have a view, you are entitled to it, incorrect in fact as it is.
-
Mysteryman
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
Reggie,
I reply to posts in chronological order, not to your behest, so if you can't cope with that, that's your problem.
Thanks for your invaluable assessment of my understanding of the basic principles of science. Obviously your opinion is much more valuable than that of the the real scientists in organisations around the world who for 30 years or so used my knowledge of those principles to prepare and facilitate the means of promulgation of their theories, modelling, testing, experimentation and assessments.
I'm not sure why you keep drifting from the point.
I stated that Chomsky was "one of the most celebrated Jewish individuals of our time". I didn't mention his theories or any of the diverse areas he has dealt with over the last 50 years, just made a bald, factual, statement.
Your reply "Noam Chomsky is hardly a celebrated intellectual". was erroneous and your comment on his work was totally crass.
Since then, you've gone round all the houses in a vain attempt to justify yourself, banging on about how his theories aren't accepted or presented acceptably to the scientific community, how boring he is and how you have actually listened to one of his lectures which proved your assessment of him to be correct.
Now, having failed to prove he isn't one of the leading Jewish intellectuals of our time, you are wittering on about proofs of his theory again, even making veiled hints that I'm accusing you of being anti Jewish ("I don't care if he is a Jew or not, makes no difference to me") which I'm not, nor have done, whilst at all times failing to grasp the real issue - your denial of his status as a celebrated intellectual.
Then, lost for any better riposte, you indulge in a futile attempt at personality destruction comparing me to a retard.
You obviously can't make and defend an argument within the confines of its parameters, you have difficulty following a series of posts unless they are spoon fed to you in order, one under the other, and have to descend to the level of the pot who calls the kettle.
Well done Reggie. I won't bother replying to you, on the point of Chomsky, in this thread again.
I reply to posts in chronological order, not to your behest, so if you can't cope with that, that's your problem.
Thanks for your invaluable assessment of my understanding of the basic principles of science. Obviously your opinion is much more valuable than that of the the real scientists in organisations around the world who for 30 years or so used my knowledge of those principles to prepare and facilitate the means of promulgation of their theories, modelling, testing, experimentation and assessments.
I'm not sure why you keep drifting from the point.
I stated that Chomsky was "one of the most celebrated Jewish individuals of our time". I didn't mention his theories or any of the diverse areas he has dealt with over the last 50 years, just made a bald, factual, statement.
Your reply "Noam Chomsky is hardly a celebrated intellectual". was erroneous and your comment on his work was totally crass.
Since then, you've gone round all the houses in a vain attempt to justify yourself, banging on about how his theories aren't accepted or presented acceptably to the scientific community, how boring he is and how you have actually listened to one of his lectures which proved your assessment of him to be correct.
Now, having failed to prove he isn't one of the leading Jewish intellectuals of our time, you are wittering on about proofs of his theory again, even making veiled hints that I'm accusing you of being anti Jewish ("I don't care if he is a Jew or not, makes no difference to me") which I'm not, nor have done, whilst at all times failing to grasp the real issue - your denial of his status as a celebrated intellectual.
Then, lost for any better riposte, you indulge in a futile attempt at personality destruction comparing me to a retard.
You obviously can't make and defend an argument within the confines of its parameters, you have difficulty following a series of posts unless they are spoon fed to you in order, one under the other, and have to descend to the level of the pot who calls the kettle.
Well done Reggie. I won't bother replying to you, on the point of Chomsky, in this thread again.
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
'Noam Chomsky is a celebrated intellectual' is a testable proposition, however he need only be celebrated by a handful of people for this to be seen to be 'true'.
-
Mysteryman
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
Well done Reggie, you've just proved what a troll you are.
Try to read, and more importantly, UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. you said "I didn't even see the comment "one of the most celebrated Jewish individuals of our time". I don't read all the posts in a thread."
Well your contention that ""Noam Chomsky is hardly a celebrated intellectual"
is a direct response at 11.20 on November 4 to my post at 11.13 on November 4.
Check the threaded view you value so much if you don't believe me. Unlike the insulting troll you obviously are, I can handle forums in both the threaded and unthreaded formats.
2." You certainly did say that Chomsky is one of the most celebrated Jewish intellectuals...etc at 11-04-09 11:13"
If you understood what you were arguing about you would see I have never disputed that point - in fact the whole of the argument is that I made that very point. You obviously have difficulties with understanding.
3. "Where did I use the word Jew exactly" Your comment "I don't care if he is a Jew or not, makes no difference to me" implies you think I think you are being racist. I had not made any reference to YOUR attitude regarding his race prior to that point, only complaining of your attitude to his reputation.
4. "Oh dear all you could see was the blazing word JEW and you think I'm running his academic reputation down so as to have an excuse to really demean him because he's Jewish. Sorry Mr Zionist but you are being very very paranoid about this when you consider I wasn't even talking about his status as a celebrated Jew as you put it but as an academic. Before this debate I was barely aware that he was Jewish, but thank you for bringing it to my attention in the most blatant way possible.
You sir are playing the RACE CARD because you think that any criticism of somebody who happens also to be Jewish has got something to do with their race which then entitles you to go on the attack. Please stop playing the angry Jew because I tell you candidly it is one of the main reasons why the Jews aren't really liked all that much and something which gets the fair-minded and better educated ones a very undeservedly bad name. I really do try to keep an open mind about people and try not to judge anybody on the basis of their nationality or race. I would certainly never make a racist or cultural attack veiled as an intellectual attack because I happen not to be a racist. You have to learn not to take it on the chin because of your race when somebody makes a criticism in a totally different context. You sir are the racist, you had no interest in what I was talking about except to very unreasonably see a racial motive in the criticism."
What a wonderful piece of trollism. First I did not say he was a celebrated Jew, I said he is a celebrate Jewish intellectual. Perhaps the nuance of the difference is beyond your intellect, more likely it is just you being a troll.
Second, I an not Jewish - your powers of deduction and assumption are as good as your understanding.
On the contrary I hate Zionism, contribute to non partisan charities (Medecin sans Frontieres for instance) which help the Palestinians and, had you bothered to read my individual post PROPERLY, you would (or at least a reasonably intelligent person would) have seen that it is a relatively balanced piece, slightly tipped at the end against Zionism and highlighting why Jews have been hated through the centuries.
Obviously you didn't understand my original post given your comment "I didn't read the whole of your post, because, no-offence it was actually quite boring and one-track, no-disresepct to your race or religion there"
and your last insult "Also, what are you doing on a porn forum if you're such a righteous Jew then? Hypocrite! as Jesus would have said.... l o l" highlights either your crass stupidity, super trollism or both.
Having failed to defend your original argument, you descend back from your height of intellect, where you probably really belong, to the gutter of insulting trollism, where you have become comfortable, delighting in insulting people by deliberately making false arguments, twisting facts, making crass assumptions and using the insults of the playground.
Try to read, and more importantly, UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. you said "I didn't even see the comment "one of the most celebrated Jewish individuals of our time". I don't read all the posts in a thread."
Well your contention that ""Noam Chomsky is hardly a celebrated intellectual"
is a direct response at 11.20 on November 4 to my post at 11.13 on November 4.
Check the threaded view you value so much if you don't believe me. Unlike the insulting troll you obviously are, I can handle forums in both the threaded and unthreaded formats.
2." You certainly did say that Chomsky is one of the most celebrated Jewish intellectuals...etc at 11-04-09 11:13"
If you understood what you were arguing about you would see I have never disputed that point - in fact the whole of the argument is that I made that very point. You obviously have difficulties with understanding.
3. "Where did I use the word Jew exactly" Your comment "I don't care if he is a Jew or not, makes no difference to me" implies you think I think you are being racist. I had not made any reference to YOUR attitude regarding his race prior to that point, only complaining of your attitude to his reputation.
4. "Oh dear all you could see was the blazing word JEW and you think I'm running his academic reputation down so as to have an excuse to really demean him because he's Jewish. Sorry Mr Zionist but you are being very very paranoid about this when you consider I wasn't even talking about his status as a celebrated Jew as you put it but as an academic. Before this debate I was barely aware that he was Jewish, but thank you for bringing it to my attention in the most blatant way possible.
You sir are playing the RACE CARD because you think that any criticism of somebody who happens also to be Jewish has got something to do with their race which then entitles you to go on the attack. Please stop playing the angry Jew because I tell you candidly it is one of the main reasons why the Jews aren't really liked all that much and something which gets the fair-minded and better educated ones a very undeservedly bad name. I really do try to keep an open mind about people and try not to judge anybody on the basis of their nationality or race. I would certainly never make a racist or cultural attack veiled as an intellectual attack because I happen not to be a racist. You have to learn not to take it on the chin because of your race when somebody makes a criticism in a totally different context. You sir are the racist, you had no interest in what I was talking about except to very unreasonably see a racial motive in the criticism."
What a wonderful piece of trollism. First I did not say he was a celebrated Jew, I said he is a celebrate Jewish intellectual. Perhaps the nuance of the difference is beyond your intellect, more likely it is just you being a troll.
Second, I an not Jewish - your powers of deduction and assumption are as good as your understanding.
On the contrary I hate Zionism, contribute to non partisan charities (Medecin sans Frontieres for instance) which help the Palestinians and, had you bothered to read my individual post PROPERLY, you would (or at least a reasonably intelligent person would) have seen that it is a relatively balanced piece, slightly tipped at the end against Zionism and highlighting why Jews have been hated through the centuries.
Obviously you didn't understand my original post given your comment "I didn't read the whole of your post, because, no-offence it was actually quite boring and one-track, no-disresepct to your race or religion there"
and your last insult "Also, what are you doing on a porn forum if you're such a righteous Jew then? Hypocrite! as Jesus would have said.... l o l" highlights either your crass stupidity, super trollism or both.
Having failed to defend your original argument, you descend back from your height of intellect, where you probably really belong, to the gutter of insulting trollism, where you have become comfortable, delighting in insulting people by deliberately making false arguments, twisting facts, making crass assumptions and using the insults of the playground.