> To me, it's not just science, but the study of language that shouldn't be thought of as a free for all. Some explanations are decidedly more useful than others. 

I think you have made a nice distinction between hard and social science.  With the social sciences the value of an explanation can be relative: how many parts of speech are there?  But science doesn't care whether an explanation is more useful; it is either a correct explanation or a wrong one.



On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

> Susan,
>    I think "a good scientist is as certain as the current evidence
> allows" is something I can live with. I don't think you stop being
> skeptical because the evidence backs a position up, but that's not a
> big issue.
>    Whether we think of it as science or not, knowledge accumulates within
> a discipline like linguistics in large part because of the shared
> exploration of people in the discipline. Either it deepens our
> understanding of language (satisfies us in that way) or it fails to do
> so. I would hate to think that knowledge about language is just up to
> the individual and that everyone's views are equal. Perhaps that's not
> what you are advocating. To me, it's not just science, but the study
> of language that shouldn't be thought of as a free for all. Some
> explanations are decidedly more useful than others. We have to move
> toward that goal somewhat collegially.
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
>> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as
>>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the opposite--a
>>> good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps
>>> especially his/her own.
>> 
>> No, this is not accurate.  A good scientist is as certain as the current
>> evidence allows.  She is not more skeptical of her own position simply
>> because it is her own.  It only became her own position BECAUSE of the
>> amount of evidence she has found in its favor.
>> 
>> What you probably meant to describe is a scientist's theory.  She should
>> work just as hard disproving her theory as proving it.  However, in the
>> end, we are human and a good scientist knows this and so relies on peer
>> review BECAUSE she knows she might be partial to her own theory--even
>> though she thought she did her best to disprove it.  If her theory passes
>> peer review, then she can be as confident of her theory as anyone else and
>> need not be any more skeptical of it than anyone else.
>> 
>> You seem to be describing science as a free-for-all in which all ideas
>> have equal certainty and skepticism.  I know you know that is not a true
>> representation.  Yet there are degrees of skepticism that you seem to hang
>> on to.  These are the same degrees of skepticism that Intelligent Design
>> proponents rely on.  They revel in giving science this wimpiness that seem
>> to applaud.   Watch out for what you advocate.  It can come back to haunt
>> you.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> 
>>>     Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach to
>>> expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with other
>>> interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and
>>> subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right;
>>> positions are subject to peer review.
>>>    Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as
>>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the opposite--a
>>> good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps
>>> especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems overwhelming, as it
>>> is for evolution and global warming, a good scientist presents those
>>> as the best current explanation of the evidence, not as a final and
>>> definitive answer. This may seem wimpy to some, but it is a
>>> cornerstone of what good science is all about.
>>>    When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within the
>>> academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the
>>> Literature in some form or another. Those who propose the new way of
>>> seeing things are under the obligation to show that they have
>>> reviewed the current literature and understand it before they offer
>>> something new. That doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses of that
>>> view, but presenting its strengths. The burden, as it should be, is
>>> not on the status quo position, but on the person who is proposing
>>> the new view to explain why it better accounts for the observed
>>> facts.
>>>    I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the list, I
>>> find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I think
>>> it's important to assert ground rules that can make it possible for
>>> us to discuss issues in a useful way.
>>>    It is  helpful to know what most experts currently believe about a
>>> topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack.
>>> 
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
>>>> Karl,
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list
>>>      and YOU
>>> 
>>>> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who
>>>      called me a
>>> 
>>>> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No
>>>      problem.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your
>>>      definition
>>> 
>>>> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are
>>>      looking
>>> 
>>>> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in
>>>      any
>>> 
>>>> decent grammar text".
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition:
>>>      The past
>>> 
>>>> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the
>>>      primary
>>> 
>>>> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense
>>>      system. The
>>> 
>>>> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior
>>>      to a
>>> 
>>>> second past event."
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're
>>>      getting
>>> 
>>>> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what
>>>      the past
>>> 
>>>> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to
>>>      locate
>>> 
>>>> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went
>>>      to the
>>> 
>>>> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect
>>>      functions to
>>> 
>>>> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second
>>>      event,
>>> 
>>>> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to
>>>      adjust
>>> 
>>>> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change
>>>      it. It
>>> 
>>>> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past
>>>      perfect
>>> 
>>>> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event".
>>>      Is it
>>> 
>>>> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or
>>>      can we
>>> 
>>>> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar.
>>>      That's
>>> 
>>>> what this is all about.)
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> .brad.06dec10.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen
>>>      <[log in to unmask]>
>>> 
>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010
>>> 
>>>> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with
>>>      Eduard. For
>>> 
>>>> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the
>>>      only
>>> 
>>>> one who knows the truth about the perfect.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the
>>>      list,
>>> 
>>>> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private
>>>      to the
>>> 
>>>> entire list.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected
>>>      your
>>> 
>>>> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away
>>>      from it.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand
>>>      the
>>> 
>>>> distinction.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to
>>>      the
>>> 
>>>> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you
>>>      demonstrate by
>>> 
>>>> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge
>>>      of
>>> 
>>>> English grammar.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be
>>>      shunned, and I
>>> 
>>>> deeply regret my folly in writing to you.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to
>>>      my idiot
>>> 
>>>> filter.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>      web
>>> 
>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>      and
>>> 
>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> .
>>> 
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
>>> "Join or leave the list"
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
>> at:
>>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>> 
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> 
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/