Hard to ar= gue with this except to raise an eyebrow at "well-known, established= benefits (i.e., ease of learning).", where "widely claimed but often dispu= ted and never tested" seems more accurate (a problem since at least 1960, w= hen testing was proposed).

From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus= @gmail.com>
To: loj= ban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for = entropy in communication ?

> It's up to you to consider I overlook t= hat, but I tend to think you
> are too much emotionally involved in your reaction. Ought to be= more
> scientifically-minded...

I have to laugh at this. For one thing, Lindar isn't reacting to your = argument. As he said, he and every one else KNOWS what your argument is. Hi= s response was "What's your point?", which means he wants to know WHY you'r= e "harping" on this. His anger, if any, is at the fact that he has asked yo= u repeatedly, and you have yet to answer him, but instead continue to repea= t yourself.

Furthermore, YOU are not being scientific.

The scientific method is:
1) Formulate a question. In this case, I believe the question is "Wha= t are the cause(s), if any, that make Lojban more prone to listener error i= n noisy environments?"

2) Make a hypothesis. "The high similarity of the various cmavo series= , such as for example [so'a, so'e, so'i, so'o, so'u], make Lojban more erro= r prone."

3) Create predictions from the hypothesis. "A person hearing {lonu lo = citri cu na morji piso'aroi cu gasnu lonu lo citri cu rapli} in a noisy env= ironment will think he heard any of [so'a, so'e, so'i, so'o, so'u], but wil= l be unable to be sure which of them it was."

4) Perform tests.

5) Analyze the test results, adjusting the hypothesis accordingly and = returning to step 3).

You stopped at 2) and said "BIG PROBLEM! EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME NOW!" N= ot only do you simply assume you're correct without even attempting to veri= fy your claim, but you offer nothing to fix this "problem" as well.

I don't believe it's a problem. Even assuming it is a problem, I don't= believe it's nearly as important or large a problem as you seem to think, = which is why I previously accused you of making mountains of molehills. Fin= ally, even assuming that you are completely correct and this is a huge extr= emely important issue, you offer no solution to the problem, nor do y= ou even state why you've brought it up /in the first place/.

Now, we all know that no changes that are not *absolutely* necessary w= ill even be considered at this time, or in the foreseeable future, so obvio= usly nothing's going to be done about this issue, assuming it exists. I've = already expressed my opinion to the contrary.

However, even were we considering proposals for changes, this one woul= d not *ever* pass. The reasons for this are: any change would break current= and past Lojban text (not backwards compatible), it has not been shown tha= t this issue actually exists, and it is a matter for debate whether the unp= roven issues are more important than the well-known, established benefits (= i.e., ease of learning).

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, this subject is closed, at least= until supporting evidence, of which there is currently /none/, is provided= . The rest of you feel free to waste your time on this subject if you desir= e.

to pu benji ti fo lo mi me la.android. samcku toi

mu'o mi'e.aionys.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.