From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 05 09:35:36 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYjSi-0001q0-8C for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:35:36 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYjSa-0001nc-81 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:35:35 -0700 Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so186714vws.25 for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:35:22 -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=U8RLdmOfORhNX+CbW1YOP8mIRVCDrlYCDxGN4tKgvF4=; b=twVZqrXrJsTw9GoE+br0+sybc2oYtnj/91W9YxBLBKSg1+rYYKjkyDfWMoSIa58zQ2 bLRX3pWnb6rBCha25mz79xOI3FigsMTYxUdyBO6hwoWUTyRES8eciY9JlIAZRe6G+uq8 pbyo4LlSYRvE1ilIJMiiyGt31B+0XIh9kyI6Q= 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=v3q+aP/xKHz/VjGrGsXjSxyjrAgVxEQzJ4H838OEBCbSA5QOTTFpGZmUe2VbZQPqNy y64KHF0mHCoc8EmmVcYjLJhBIlyRquTwThw1Kc08R5fWf3fqfObnEfO/AC9zXuHoyT74 6MVW3HJFlcDQYkVA9ONSuZUOoWslEv2r/JzYU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.92.11 with SMTP id p11mr8616770vcm.56.1249490121861; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:35:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <500926.81477.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <987611.38248.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5715b9300908050714m209051e9ud8ab75e7b236cc85@mail.gmail.com> <500926.81477.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:35:21 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300908050935w48164fc4oe9bbea8a3f91c6f5@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e646976add2bc7047067962f X-archive-position: 15906 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 --0016e646976add2bc7047067962f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that the hypothesis is defined to vaguely to make realistic/specific tests? - Luke Bergen On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > Yes, it sorta does in this case, since the claimed effects and claimed > causes seem to be very familiar and open to examination and tinkering. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:14:25 AM > *Subject:* [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf > > 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 >> >> > > --0016e646976add2bc7047067962f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm not sure I follow you here.=A0 Are you saying that the hypothesis i= s defined to vaguely to make realistic/specific tests?
- Luke Bergen


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM, John E = Clifford <kali= 9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, it sorta does in this case, since the claimed effect= s and claimed causes seem to be very familiar and open to examination and t= inkering.

<= b>From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com= >

To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, August= 5, 2009 9:14:25 AM

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

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 <kali9putra@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: "Morphem= eAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>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




--0016e646976add2bc7047067962f-- 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.