"Scientists" though
Register

User Tag List

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1

    "Scientists" though

    For a very long time people tried their best to prove the controversial Sapir-Whorf hypothesis at any cost. Just because there's something attractive to the idea.

    Lots of great arguments from many many many languages had been put forward, all of which would look very convincing to someone who doesn't know better.
    (Neo-Whorfianists are at least proven though.)

    But this begs the question. In what other areas have scientists been full of it? For one, what about language history? If they can't not make biased random beautiful-looking conclusions about languages from today, what chances are there that they can be objective about long dead languages?
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.

  2. #2

    Re: "Scientists" though

    I think one problem with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that people often have thoughts that they cannot express succinctly because language doesn't allow them to.
    There are many subtleties that are lost when you actually try to explain your thoughts.

    Language is more of a vehicle for thoughts than the originator.

    As for your question. Some people genuinely believed Celtic languages were Semitic and not fully Indo-European.
    Another example: Hittite was long thought to be a language isolate, but it was more or less proven recently that it's an Indo-European language.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  3. #3

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    For a very long time people tried their best to prove the controversial Sapir-Whorf hypothesis at any cost. Just because there's something attractive to the idea.

    Lots of great arguments from many many many languages had been put forward, all of which would look very convincing to someone who doesn't know better.
    (Neo-Whorfianists are at least proven though.)

    But this begs the question. In what other areas have scientists been full of it? For one, what about language history? If they can't not make biased random beautiful-looking conclusions about languages from today, what chances are there that they can be objective about long dead languages?
    For something current? Quantum computing. Check out this publication from Scott Aaronson (one of the most cited and published authors in the field): https://scottaaronson.com/papers/qml.pdf

    It’s not that long and he does a good job avoiding overly technical terminology as best as possible.
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  4. #4

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    For something current? Quantum computing. Check out this publication from Scott Aaronson (one of the most cited and published authors in the field): https://scottaaronson.com/papers/qml.pdf

    It’s not that long and he does a good job avoiding overly technical terminology as best as possible.
    That's exactly it lol.
    Though it's sad that quantum computing ended up being over hyped, it sounded like something really cool and futuristic.

    But at least it's still good for some areas. The guy in the paper said it best: "Having spent half my
    life in quantum computing research, I still find it miraculous that the laws of quantum physics let us solve
    any classical problems exponentially faster than today’s computers seem able to solve them."
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.

  5. #5

    Re: "Scientists" though

    I think one problem with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that people often have thoughts that they cannot express succinctly because language doesn't allow them to.
    There are many subtleties that are lost when you actually try to explain your thoughts.
    that's called illiteracy


    Was the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis disproven? I wasn't aware. Any links?
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  6. #6

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    that's called illiteracy


    Was the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis disproven? I wasn't aware. Any links?
    Yea but you're not getting any links, I can't find any. That's what I was taught
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  7. #7

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    that's called illiteracy


    Was the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis disproven? I wasn't aware. Any links?
    For it to get disproven, it'd have to be proven first.


    But, sure, here's one.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy
    Though I guess it doesn't disprove his idea, only that his premise for his example was wrong.

    The thing is, that the hypothesis has been very elusive to prove.
    -The Russian language indicates future tense mostly via context and it's been argued that it's why they're often late (are they?). Yet the same can be said about the Japanese language and you'd hardly say the same about the Japanese.
    -Every language has a lexical gap, but we'd hardly say about any of them that they are incapable of thinking that way. As a French speaker, how would you say "Your car is sticking out of the row" (Like when parked not fully in)? You have to talk around it because you have no noun for that - so are we to believe that the French can't perceive a badly parked car?
    -Many languages in the world have, when speaking about the past, something that can be described as an evidential marker. So when they say something about the past, their words directly show whether or not they themselves seen it. If we go by the Whorfian hypothesis - we must conclude that English speakers are not curious about sources of information or even have no notion of it.
    -Though maybe there's a point? Because here we have a French speaker asking me about the source, and, according to Journalist Mark Abley, it's because you have words savoir and connaître: "My language allows me, somewhat clumsily, to get the distinctions across: on the one hand, factual knowledge, on the other, acquaintanceship and understanding. But to a French speaker, that distinction is central to how the mind interacts with the world."
    -Mark Abley has also argued that the Algonquian language are less self-centered because some of them always put "you" first in sentences. He was disproven, same as Whorf with the Hoki.
    -The Mohawk has a word that means 3 things: beautiful, good, law - and it's been argued how it makes them different. Yet every language in the world has homonymies, and upon thinking about one's own language - people can realize that it's all bullocks. It's just disingenuous.

    This kinda of double standard of these "scientists" who are driven to prove that more exotic/foreign languages have some form of a better way of looking at the world or thinking, just because of their language, became very apparent when they reacted to Alfred Bloom's experiment. Alfred Bloom looked at the fact that Chinese don't have words that directly indicate hypotheticality and made an experiment that showed that the Chinese might have a slightly less alertness to hypotheticality. Him being right or wrong is beside the point. The main point is that the other scholars completely dismissed the very notion of allowing the mere possibility of the idea being right. History indicates that they would have the opposite reaction if Bloom made the case that it's the English speakers who are slightly less alert of hypotheticality.

    The thing is that this language and thought question is like the chicken and the egg question. People studying language history has shown that it's the culture that develops language, not the other way around. Other than the small differences shows by Neo-Whorfians, there has been no evidence of a difference in thinking between people of different languages that's directly linked the language difference instead of cultural.


    My specific source of information:
    https://www.amazon.com/Understanding.../dp/B07X9LBN9W
    Last edited by OzyWho; April 28th, 2021 at 11:46 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.

  8. #8

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Yea but you're not getting any links, I can't find any. That's what I was taught
    My man, go disprove that there is a flying space dick on the other side of Jupiter always hiding from us. No links? That's what I thought
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.

  9. #9

  10. #10

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    My man, go disprove that there is a flying space dick on the other side of Jupiter always hiding from us. No links? That's what I thought
    Fair.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  11. #11

    Re: "Scientists" though

    these titles are so troll lol
    "The child must have a valuable thing which is called imagination. The child must have a secret world in which live things that never were. It is necessary that he believe. He must start out believing in things not of this world. Then, when the world becomes too ugly for living in, the child can reach back and live in his imagination. I, myself, even in this day and age, have great need of this. Only by having imagination in my mind can I live beyond what I have to live for.”

  12. #12

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Yeah that somehow doesn't surprise me. If people were unable to express thoughts that didn't exist in the language you wouldn't even have semantic disputes, because there's nothing to debate. The word literally means one thing, and one thing only, if you accept Sapir-Whorf. But words do not mean exactly the same thing to everyone. There's slight nuances and details to words that escape their definition, and vary for each person.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  13. #13

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    @Helz
    You never visit circlejerk
    The damn French made me put half an effort into this quick thread already, so might as well invite you for a visit. :/
    Lol I didn't ask for so much!

    All things you said are valid, but they also aren't proving anything. Therefore, the hypothesis remains an hypothesis; quite unlikely, maybe, but not impossible.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  14. #14

  15. #15

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I guess I just take everything too seriously to know how to properly jerk : )
    SAY UWU ONCE. SAY IT ONE TIME@!!!

    UEU OEO UFOFU HEFUU HEWWU!!!
    "The child must have a valuable thing which is called imagination. The child must have a secret world in which live things that never were. It is necessary that he believe. He must start out believing in things not of this world. Then, when the world becomes too ugly for living in, the child can reach back and live in his imagination. I, myself, even in this day and age, have great need of this. Only by having imagination in my mind can I live beyond what I have to live for.”

  16. #16

  17. #17

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    @theoneceko

    UEU UWU OEWEEWOOO : )
    u hate emojis too?

    ANTI-MOJI GANG. UWOWU HEWWO!!!
    "The child must have a valuable thing which is called imagination. The child must have a secret world in which live things that never were. It is necessary that he believe. He must start out believing in things not of this world. Then, when the world becomes too ugly for living in, the child can reach back and live in his imagination. I, myself, even in this day and age, have great need of this. Only by having imagination in my mind can I live beyond what I have to live for.”

  18. #18

  19. #19

    Re: "Scientists" though

    Quote Originally Posted by theoneceko View Post
    u hate emojis too?

    ANTI-MOJI GANG. UWOWU HEWWO!!!
    :noworry::weed::sad::>-_--_-:love::wondering::):sick::huh::D8);(:shy::idea::un sure::$:fire::slaol::thriller::rolleyes::|:push::l augh::evil::O^.^:S:cheesy::cheesy::blink1::(:weird ::smile::worried::suspicious::mad:0.o:p:bus::mafia 2::sheep::smurf::neutral::fb::facepalm::darkness:: superjack::calix::scum::town::noose::benign::cult: :orp::toad:timetostop:dumbtracer::brendan::chicken wings::toadette::calix::neutral::wailord::spinda:: cherrim::bulbasaur::fragos::ludicolo::gyarados::sl owpoke::pikachu::mudkip:FeelsBirthdayManSourPlsBro keBackFailFishOpieOPOSfrogFrankerZVapeNationSweaty 4HeadRarePepeKKonabeakoHeyGuysPJSaltPogChampKappaD uckerZhaHAAFeelsGoodManSeemsGood:thinking::gun::gu n:KappaPrideResidentSleeperResidentSleeper:ludicol o::fragos::gyarados::bulbasaur::slowpoke::cherrim: :pikachu::spinda::missingno::mareep::magikarp::squ irtle::charmander::muk::snorlax:KagedFeelsBadManJe baitedD=PedoBearVoHiYoLULGabeNMingLeeFeelsAmazingM an:tf:ANELEBabyRageBibleThumpDansGameNotLikeThisKr eygasmKevinTurtleKeepoKappaRossSMorcSwiftRageTriHa rdWutFace:jigglypuff:SmugPepeCiGripEleGiggleohnKaz pa
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.

  20. #20

    Re: "Scientists" though

    :)
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •