From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Jan 19 22:09:27 1994 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 20 Jan 1994 08:52:00 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 20 Jan 1994 08:51:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199401201351.AA02785@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1437; Thu, 20 Jan 94 08:50:13 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0573; Thu, 20 Jan 94 03:05:40 EDT Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 03:09:27 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: soc.culture.scientists posting To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-Status: I am posting the following to soc.culture.scientists in response to an ongoing thread. It occurs to me that there has been little discussion of how we want to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis using Lojban in recent years. Is there any interest in discussing this on this forum at this time? lojbab ============ Subject: Re: Language and Language Traps in Science Newsgroups: soc.culture.scientists Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Keywords: Darwinism, social darwinism, eugenics, Sapir-Whorf, Loglan/Lojban From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) >Why has this thread not drawn more interest? I can think of a number of >interesting examples of how language causes people to come to false >results. For example after Darwin's theory of evolution came forward >there were attempts to apply it to the social sciences. Survival of the >fittest was consistently misunderstood since people thought of fittest >as meaning the people who were well-off. But since those people tend to >have smaller families they were actually *less* evolutionarily fit than >the poor. I'm not sure this is true. You are assuming a different meaning of "fittest": numerical domination of the population. This might be called the 'democratic fallacy'. From the opposing point of you that you stated, assuming that the well-off are therefor more fit might be called the 'elitist fallacy'. Either or both may be fallacious. Possibly both may have their niche. I am skeptical of the democratic fallacy (that the well-off are less evolutionarily fit) by the following reasoning: In our society(s), someone who is well off has more material goods to inherit. Unlike genetic traits, material goods are not usually shared. By having fewer heirs, those goods are split among a smaller number of people, who then have a nice nest egg to start with. Successful people (by some definitions) are those who tend to increase their wealth during their lives. Thus, if a particular strain of 'well-off' people are successful and minimize their numbers of heirs (while continuing to have at least one and to pass wealth to the heirs), the wealth of the well-off continues to increase. In modern society (and indeed most societies), wealth means power and/or influence over others. It often means more/better choices in mating opportunities, better access to education and medicine (things that are strongly correlated with survival and prosperity). There are social and biological traits that can interfere with what would be an otherwise infinitely increasing spiral of wealth. As you note, increased wealth leads to reduced progeny; sometimes it can lead to dispersal of wealth at death other than to heirs (which result occurs less often in the less well-off), inbreeding, putting all ones 'genetic investment' in a single offspring 'basket' that might for social or biological reason NOT continue the trend of increase. Then there are wars and revolutions that can lead to massive overturning of the distribution of wealth. And democracy and anti-elitism is a counter-force against the spiral of wealth, although a relatively recent one (perhaps it is a newly evolved strategy for the less well-off masses to overcome the evolutionary advantage of wealth). But for the most part, the well-off stay well-off and powerful over long periods of time. The Dupont family is a lot richer than I will ever be, both collectively and individually. And they will likely pass on their genes and their cultural/social values to later generations more effectively than I will. Likewise, I suspect that I have similar advantages over someone living in an American inner-city slum, who in turn may or may not have advantages over a massively reproducing family line in a 3rd world country (little hard to tell in this case given the problems of our inner cities). Indeed, faced with the extremes of the Duponts and a third world peasant, the latter, who might produce a dozen offspring only to most or all of them die of famine or disease, might be at a biological as well as social disadvantage; in any case, what ends up being bred for in the bulk of human population is the ability to survive privation. This is vital if we face a future of universal privation, and counterproductive if we face continued (relative) wealth, and/or if education/intelligence and other traits might allow humankind to more effectively survive the stresses we are putting on the earth and on our own species. Biology has many instances of species/breeds that produce relatively few progeny having relative success over other species that produce more progeny, provided that the few progeny gain advantages within their niche to make up the lack of numbers. Right now, it is possible to argue that man dominates the earth (for good or bad), though we are relatively non-fertile and slow to reproduce. Or it is possible to argue that insects, or even bacteria, are the dominant life form on this planet, through sheer numbers. Who can tell for sure? To me, the fallacy of Social Darwinism was in turning evolution into a basis for moral judgements, especially when it is pretty near impossible to determine exactly what individual social or genetic traits are most conducive to species success (or even individual success). The judgements of those making the decisions are of course going to be opposed by those deemed less 'successful' which will probably in the long term be the majority. In modern societies, democratic values have triumphed, and social darwinism has been culturally repudiated by most of humankind (though many individuals still follow its premises in some or most aspects of their lives). (Perhaps this is for the best, too. While most today would consider eugenics to be morally reprehensible, there might indeed be sound *evolutionary* reasons for attempting to breed out certain disadvantageous genetic traits, especially when we are likely to be faced with population constraints on the planet within some few generations). It is not clear whether the repudiation of eugenics or social darwinism would have been the result if Darwinism had been conceived in some earlier time period. I'm not taking sides on what is right or wrong, merely pointing out that your conclusion is itself based on a potential 'trap', which we might call "philosophical darwinism" - that the ideas that survive and spread are necessarily the 'best' or 'most correct'. This 'trap' seems to be especially prevalent among the thinking of scientists, or at least those posting on this forum, IMHO. I am of course, especially interested in the interaction of language and culture, and as a scientist, between language and the scientific subculture. The research project I've been leading, developing the Loglan/Lojban artificial language, has as one of its goals the eventual scientific test of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which you alluded to later in the above posting. I'm not prepared to post on the problem now, but it might be interesting to see how the community of this newsgroup would address the problem of testing the SWH scientifically, and in particular to review some of the ideas proposed by those working on Loglan/Lojban. If there is interest in such a discussion, I will try to write something up. ---- lojbab Note new address: lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 For information about the artificial language Loglan/Lojban, please provide a paper-mail address to me. We also have information available electronically via ftp (casper.cs.yale.edu, in the directory pub/lojban) and/or email (listserv mailing list lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu). The LLG is funded solely by contributions, and are needed in order to support electronic and paper distribution.