> 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/