[Cue Telemann's Burlesque de Quixotte.]
At 12:34:26 AM on Sunday, January 25, 2004, Glen Gordon
wrote:
> Brian:
>>In all the time that I've been reading your comments here
>>and elsewhere, you've never recognized that what theory/
>>explanation is simplest depends very much on what evidence
>>one considers relevant and on how one weights it.
> So you're saying to embrace chaos?
No, unless by embracing chaos you mean recognizing that when
the subject matter is complex, intelligent, reasonable
people working from essentially the same data can
legitimately arrive at different conclusions. Possibly it's
just for rhetorical effect, but you have a strong tendency
to confuse 'self-evident to Glen Gordon' with 'self-evident
to anyone with a brain in his head' or even simply with
'true'.
> Because what other choice do we have if we ignore logic
> principles?
I said nothing about ignoring principles of logic. As I
clearly said, your objections have nothing to do with logic,
but with selection and weighting of evidence. To put it
even more simply, you're confusing argument and premises.
> I never said that the optimal solution of the solutions
> evaluated by Occam's Razor is necessarily straightforward.
> However, the principle itself is,
Anyone who actually thinks seriously about it will discover
that the simplicity is all on the surface, largely because
simplicity itself is too complex a notion to be defined.
(There's a considerable literature on the subject; the name
'Nelson Goodman' is a good starting point in the unlikely
event that you're curious.) It only sounds simple; actually
applying it is rarely simple, as is obvious from the fact
that in many argument _both_ sides appeal to it to support
their positions.
> I've mentioned how there is simply _no_ evidence to
> support palatals in IE itself...
> But nobody has addressed this important fact because their
> faulty logic seems to confuse "evidence for palatals in
> SATEM dialects" with "evidence in IE itself".
This is not a matter of logic, but of premises, e.g., the
relative weights that one gives (a) the methodological
principle of not reconstructing a segment that is completely
unattested in the daughter languages, and (b) the
statistical evidence of typology.
> People like you then come along to derail the topic in
> the confusion and question logic itself.
Not in the least. I am pointing out that logic isn't the
issue; the problem is that you and Mate (for instance) are
working from different premises. Is it really necessary to
point out that from different premises it is possible to
reach incompatible conclusions _using_perfectly_sound_logic_?
>>Logic is almost never the issue in these arguments; the
>>argument is almost always over the relative importance of
>>different types of evidence.
> Erh, that _is_ logic.
No, but at least this explains your consistent misuse of the
term: you misunderstand it. Communication would be easier
(and easier on the nerves) if you'd sort out for yourself
the difference between logic and premises -- you don't,
after all, call stops fricatives just because they're both
obstruents -- but I'll not hold my breath.
Brian