Piotr re-emerges:
>To begin with, mathematics is NOT a "physical science" but
>an exact theory of logical deduction.
Perhaps I should restate it as "absolute", "tangible" or "measurable"
science. Mathematics is all "Yes", "No", "5%", etc. These are all absolute
answers. Even so, probabilistic answers can arise such as the "variable".
However, absolute answers are expected underneath it all.
Of course we could get into... say, the "imaginary number" which is the
number that pops up when dealing with the supposedly infinitessimal black
hole singularities but this answer isn't exactly loved by scientists who
want strict answers - it's annoyingly ambiguous. This is why scientists say
with sadness that the laws of physics are unknown inside a black hole.
Of course this doesn't mean at all that there is no answer to what lies
inside a black hole and it doesn't prevent us from adopting the likeliest
theory available to us at the time... like perhaps, that the same laws of
physics exist INSIDE the black hole as well and that there may be a
universal limit to the density of mass within a given area of space-time
causing an internal violent reaction like space-time expansion, which is
exactly what happened during the so-called "big bang", but I digress. :)
BTW, ALL sciences can be called theories of logical deduction, not just
mathematics. Deduction is the key to it all.
>However, not even physics (not to mention chemistry, astronomy, cosmology
>or geology) is as exact and doubt-free as pure mathematics.
But these things are all measurable which makes this distinction real.
Comparative linguistics defies yet to be properly measured. I can measure
how far a star is from me, I can touch different types of rock and analyse
them, I can combine baking soda and vinegar together to watch a measurable
chemical reaction take place. I can't touch language, I can't measure
language. These sciences are fully distinct in that respect from comparative
linguistics.
>The biological sciences deal with dauntingly complex sustems
>and processes.
...Which, regardless, are measurable and tangible systems and processes.
>They are not so easy to formalise and
>consequently individual opinions may play a significant role
>in evaluating answers to non-trivial questions (e.g. "Did
>birds evolve from small maniraptors or from primitive
>archosaurs?" "Were the Neanderthals a subspecies of Homo
>sapiens?").
Aha! Now you've cheated and let a bit of your confusion shine through! Now
you're talking about comparative physiology and the like, which IS very much
like comparative linguistics because you're trying to piece together the
unwritten past. This kind of work is, I will say again, forever theoretical,
without physical absolute proof, without tangibility and without strict
measure - all just like comparative linguistics. In the end, we still take
the most probable theory until a better one arises.
>Of course the social and behavioural sciences
>are the least objective of all. But in ALL sciences there
>have been remarkable advances towards more objectivity,
>greater reliability and deeper insight, mainly thanks to
>their interlocking relationships. Scientific disciplines
>form a spectrum, and the subdivisions we introduce for the
>sake of convenience are arbitrary. Progress in physics, for
>example, helps chemists, biologists and even archaeologists.
>Your classification of science into "physical" and
>"theoretical" (?) is artificial.
The classification is logical. Despite whatever "remarkable advances towards
more objectivity" you are trying to point out with the intangible sciences,
it will never fight against the logical natures of these different sciences
which are very easily seperable into "measurable" and "immeasurable",
"tangible" and "intangible". No doubt though, the progress of any one of the
sciences filters through into other sciences - that last part isn't relevant
to the rest of this, but it is very true.
>We do use the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than
>"100%" when we assess the quality of a "proof" in historical
>linguistics.
Irrelevant. The term "doubt" automatically implies "opinion" and therefore
the "proof" is arbitrary as I have said before, based on an individual's
tolerance to probability. Obviously, your "beyond reasonable doubt" will be
different from the next person's.
>Still, I'm against the postmodern tendency to reduce science >to
>"narratives" and personal opinions.
This is hardly postmodern. It's the truth to some extent. Science has always
been swayed by opinion and has always been affected by the times, whether it
be political, economic, sociological, etc. Would IE be as successful today
if there wasn't such a booming interest in the Orient in the 19th century?
Would the term "Aryan" and the shwastika symbol be so despised and
misunderstood if it weren't for the NAZIs and World War II?
>Distributional arguments may help in
>screening the data against "loanword contamination". It
>means painstaking work, but who says linguistics is easy?
>There is a vast literature devoted to these technical
>issues. Comparative linguistics is not as helplessly
>subjective as your statements imply.
I agree that as much rigor as possible is always needed. Unfortunately, it
appears to me that CompLx is still largely "subjective" because of each
person's level of probabilistic tolerance... sigh :)
>"Don't know" is a modest answer -- not defeatist at all,
>just cautious. You speculate that Gilyak (well, I do prefer
>"Nivkh") is related to Korean and Altaic. But since you
>don't provide convincing evidence to substantiate this claim
>(I mean the sort of evidence that would convince others and
>not only strengthen your own hunches), your opinion remains
>highly subjective and you'll PROBABLY have to keep it for
>yourself (but let your model evolve and we shall see).
Again, you have an arbitrarily set level of tolerance to probability that
prevents you, personally, from accepting the relationship of Gilyak to
Altaic. This is not an absolute view that all people may share.
>Advocatus Diaboli: [...]
Quid dices, meus amice latinis? :)
>[...] -- I see, Glen, you tacitly ASSUME that
>all languages are ultimately related in a non-trivial
>phylogenetic sense (i.e., that they form a neat family tree
>which is reconstructable at least in principle). However,
>except in highly controversial classifications, there are
>many isolated languages and tiny groups, so Nivkh would be
>no exception. Is your tacit assumption warranted, then?
Yes, it is. You are now contradicting your statements. Does Occam's Razor
mean anything at all? In the absence of absolute knowledge, it is simpler to
assume that all human languages derive from a common ancestral language
(instead of two, three, five hundred...), just as it is simpler to assume
that all humans derive from a common ancestor. As such, it would be totally
counter to Occam's Razor to assume that Gilyak is NOT related to any given
language(s) and therefore "isolate". This is by far the unlikeliest
scenario.
If we go for more complex theories all the time, everything gets hopelessly
confused like Starostin's North Caucasian reconstructions which lack
simplistic order and design.
>What if isolates and numerous small families were the NORM until
>pretty recently (as they still are in some parts of the
>world)?
Again, you're giving in to complexity which will only lead to confusion.
Occam's Razor is about simplicity. We only need concern ourselves with
monogeneticity for the moment.
>This possibility undermines the assertion that Nivkh
>MUST have some extant genetic relatives.
Of course it does, but why should we accept this more complex view over the
simpler idea that Nivkh and all other human languages are related under ONE
family. The monogenetic hypothesis remains far simpler than a polygenetic
arguement and therefore should be adopted until further evidence warrants
the more complex polygenetic view.
>Thanks for the examples of Altaic phonetic correspondences
>(I'd STILL appreciate more lexical material). I'll need some
>time to analyse them, but you can count on me in this
>neverending debate.
It's cool. Thanx alot. I may seem like I'm being Mr-Angry-Bear but I do
appreciate the discussion.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com