From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 05 07:14:37 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYhGH-00086R-14 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:14:37 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYhGC-00081U-PQ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:14:36 -0700 Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so88493vws.25 for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:14:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ctcdQix3+2nrL84Z7zIk2x6pBrME4FDadvWCIhYHLG4=; b=Zo6Qv+V1tDa2E9Q4HpvNcRjUpEI6LJmWHIQlxGHv5M6IVoImoNcJFZuMD53vwWSzRp jZQLR4E2nJIwNEbfWb+GthMk71FF5kuZZiOnY+HLqfJXiVksoramfdKrC6gPY7vkyfsY tAwqz309Xca1aOtFhEen+XcKdnFW7Nbg13uhU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Oa2PldIOEAHNxy4jrgGrrYDJ58mXZJFhPT6W9wIqbI0Mj4/HispfGRSkLaLRa73l0J QcG2JG20Nsyz8xwNU4Tr1NzvFYqCmBlWQD/Ey5UJ9XnnTJk0AE0QBAeqxabAnc/WxpOA q10iffLbvt7PoXI9xpA9s5biz540xXvF4wXg0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.96.194 with SMTP id i2mr8211755vcn.96.1249481666594; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:14:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <987611.38248.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <987611.38248.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:14:25 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300908050714m209051e9ud8ab75e7b236cc85@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64ec4a0e409130470659e02 X-archive-position: 15902 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0016e64ec4a0e409130470659e02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How does failing to come up with a testable hypothesis make something a crock? It just means we've failed to test it so far. There are a lot of things in the universe that we don't know how to test yet, that doesn't make them "a crock" does it? - Luke Bergen On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > The negative results of sixty years (more or less, probably more) of trying > to formulate a testable hypothesis that is even vaguely related to what Ed > and Ben said. The best of these (possibly testable) were either trivially > true (the vocab cases) or blatantly false (the strong metaphysical > determination cases), and only the latter looked much like what the two > actually said. Of the rest, the untestable ones (though it didn't stop > people from claiming to try) yielded no significant results (of course) and > the testable ones had nought to do with the professor and the claims > adjuster (and the results were still generally negative). > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" > *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:30:22 PM > *Subject:* [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf > > In a message dated 8/3/2009 15:39:24 Eastern Daylight Time, > kali9putra@yahoo.com writes: > > > SWH is about deep level grammatical categories and ontology, not about > vocabulary tricks. (It is still a crock, of course, but at least it is an > interesting crock). > > > > What evidence do you have that it's a crock? > > stevo > > --0016e64ec4a0e409130470659e02 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How does failing to come up with a testable hypothesis make something a cro= ck?=A0 It just means we've failed to test it so far.=A0 There are a lot= of things in the universe that we don't know how to test yet,=A0 that = doesn't make them "a crock" does it?

- Luke Bergen


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM, John E C= lifford <kali9= putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
The negative results of sixty years (more or less, probab= ly more) of trying to formulate a testable hypothesis that is even vaguely = related to what Ed and Ben said.=A0 The best of these (possibly testable) w= ere either trivially true (the vocab cases) or blatantly false (the strong = metaphysical determination cases), and only the latter looked much like wha= t the two actually said. Of the rest, the untestable ones (though it didn&#= 39;t stop people from claiming to try) yielded no significant results (of c= ourse) and the testable ones had nought to do with the professor and the cl= aims adjuster (and the results were still generally negative).

<= b>From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect= .com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>

To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 4= , 2009 9:30:22 PM

Subject: [lojban] Re: = Experiments in Sapir Whorf

In a message dated 8/3/2009= 15:39:24 Eastern Daylight Time, kali9putra@yahoo.com writes:


SWH is about deep level grammatical categories and ontology, not a= bout vocabulary tricks. =A0(It is still a crock, of course, but at least it= is an interesting crock).


What evidence do you have that it's a crock?

stevo


--0016e64ec4a0e409130470659e02-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.