Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 7:43 AM
31 online now:
JoeT, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Pressie, RAZD, Tangle (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1779 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 256 of 268 (428199)
10-15-2007 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by bernerbits
10-15-2007 8:16 AM


Re: Speech and communication
quote:
Its not a difference in degree but in kind.

No speech in any life forms

Just repeating a claim doesn't make it truer. You haven't yet substantiated either of these.


With the first, I tended the outermost limit what can be termed as a dif in kind. There is nothing more extreme than all life forms [trillions] vs one; I extended on that limit.

With the latter, no speech in any other life form, is a manifest and indisputable fact.

These are also upheld by sectors of prominent scientists who have made the same premise.

quote:

Parrots are far better at mimicking sounds than humans.

Correct - thus it is an anomoly humans begat speech before parrots, despite appearing billions of years later. Parots/birds are the descendents of dinosaurs.

quote:

But if their brains evolved to the complexity necessary to process language on the same level humans do, they would no longer be able to fly due to the disproportionate size of their heads. It would be more burdensome than beneficial. There has to be a net benefit with respect to the environment for natural selection to favor a mutation.


This is another example of slight of hand casino science. Firstly, there is no evidence the brain caused speech - else we would see partial speech by grads subject to brain sizes in a host of other life forms. Secondly, the size of the brain becomes a moot factor when considering the overall weight and size of large birds. It is self-contradictory to assume the brain being both the cause and negation for speech.

It appears this debate will go on forever and in a cyclical mode, and its not due to lack of evidence or logic. Because the speech factor comes from what is seen as a theology, it is automatically viewed in defense - regardless if it has a coherent and sustainable emperical premise. It gets worse that here is a premise which actually counters one science premise - with another scientific premise - and that one can negate the other. Had the premise of speech come from another scientists, and was not related to genesis - we would see 50% of the debate resting on one side, if not 75% of it.

In fact, the core of this issue is hardly vested in the semantics of degree and kind, but is just as easily seen as a difference by any measure one likes. The real impact is that there is no transitory grads between communications of all life forms, and that of modern humans. This issue, which requires evidences and imprints of speech - perhaps every 5000 years - is confounded by the premise speech is not recordable or storable in a fossil, and that there was no recording writings - till suspiciously close to the Genesis dating when both speech and writings occured.

But this premise is a false one, and despite the absence of writings, there are numerous other indicators for evidence of speech: I sited the recalling of a human name, king, queen, nation, war, folksong or liturgy. These are recallable without writings. I cited that Genesis is relating to a periofd when writings did not exist - not even pitcture writings, but that speech was still active.
I suggest a notion of history be shown prior to the genesis datings. One does not select what criteria suits one's preferred conclusion: this is casino science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 8:16 AM bernerbits has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 9:52 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 259 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 10:51 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 260 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 10:52 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 262 by AdminNosy, posted 10-15-2007 11:33 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2007 10:37 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1779 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 257 of 268 (428201)
10-15-2007 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by bernerbits
10-15-2007 8:24 AM


quote:
Where in the paper do the scientists/linguists say, "Well geez. This is just embarrassing. This means the whole theory is evolution is wrong. We've been spinning our wheels for the last 200 years. We really feel just awful about all this. Sorry to confuse everybody."?

Yes they do say that. Speech is seen as a stumbling block for ToE, with statements by scientists - linguists and biologists, such as 'THIS POSES A QUANDARY FOR EVOLUTION, INDEED IT DOES'; 'TOUGH ONE FOR EVOLUTION', etc. Some of these quotes have been posted in articles here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 8:24 AM bernerbits has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 11:25 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4055 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 258 of 268 (428202)
10-15-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 8:54 AM


Re: Speech and communication
Firstly, there is no evidence the brain caused speech
Of course there is. We know firsthand that certain types of brain damage to the frontal and temporal lobes inhibit and even destroy a human's ability to speak. Please explain why this is not evidence of the brain "causing" speech.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 8:54 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4055 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 259 of 268 (428203)
10-15-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 8:54 AM


Re: Speech and communication
There is nothing more extreme than all life forms [trillions] vs one
Rarity doesn't say a thing about kind or degree. It just says how rare it is.

With the latter, no speech in any other life form, is a manifest and indisputable fact.
To which you've been presented over and over with counterexamples, which you've just dismissed as irrelevant without explaining why.

These are also upheld by sectors of prominent scientists who have made the same premise.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Cite specific study and show that you know what case is being made, by which "prominent scientists" and why.

thus it is an anomoly humans begat speech before parrots, despite appearing billions of years later
Eh? Modern birds showed up 150 mya whereas human evolution only started around 85 mya. But it's irrelevant. Life evolves in many different directions; it's not a sliding scale of "less beneficial" to "more beneficial". It is in no way anomalous even if humans predated birds.

This is another example of slight of hand casino science.
What? No. There's no sleight of hand involved here. And we're not doing "hard science" here, it's debate. This is an ad hominem attack and not fruitful debate.

It is self-contradictory to assume the brain being both the cause and negation for speech.
No it's not. Ever hear of a double-edged sword? Something that can be both a benefit and a burden? For example, antibiotics can save your life but they can also kill you. That's not a contradiction, it just means that it's dependent upon the conditions in which it's administered.

The same goes for natural selection. The conditions have to be right for the burden to be minimized. This is true of just about every mutation. It's not self-contradictory. It's a cost-benefit game and the final judge is whoever lives long enough to reproduce.

To become optimized for flight, a bird must necessarily forfeit other potentially beneficial traits like say human language.

Secondly, the size of the brain becomes a moot factor when considering the overall weight and size of large birds.
Consider that the largest bird capable of mimicking human speech has a much smaller head than that necessary to produce language at the complexity produced by humans.

One does not select what criteria suits one's preferred conclusion: this is casino science.
No, we explain based on what the theory of evolution predicts. The theory of evolution is a model produced to fit the data and modified accordingly.

As soon as (1) evidence comes to light that is clearly and irrefutably contradictory to the theory of evolution and (2) an alternate, testable theory that fits the data better is presented, we'll all be happy to scrap ToE, but we'll still consider it a useful approximation.

Consider that we know the Bohr atomic model is wrong, but it still correctly predicts the behavior of hydrogen. Or that we know the Newtonian (g=9.8m/s2) model for gravity is wrong, but it still correctly predicts the behavior of slow-moving objects near earth. For this reason they're still taught in science textbooks.

Because the speech factor comes from what is seen as a theology
No, because your premise consistently fails to hold up to scrutiny. You fail consistently to defend it. You just make the same assertions over and over again and make ad hominem attacks when we ask how you deal with such and such obvious implication of your premise. For example, you assert repeatedly that speech is not a function of the brain, yet I've presented you with evidence that it is (i.e., brain damage is known to cause speech impediments and speech loss) and you've not once addressed it. Scientists don't care where a theory comes from, they care whether or not it is scientifically sound and fits the available data.

Had the premise of speech come from another scientists, and was not related to genesis - we would see 50% of the debate resting on one side, if not 75% of it.
If a scientist were to present this idea, the scientific community would expect the person who presented it to back his claim up with copious data and sufficiently explain away the obvious problem of why certain types of brain damage affect speech ability; they wouldn't accept it just because "another scientist said so". They would ask the same questions we're asking you. Scientists are not above criticism. Scientists judge the merit of a theory based on how well the data lines up with what the hypothesis predicts. They don't pass laws by show of hands.

till suspiciously close to the Genesis dating when both speech and writings occured.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is yet another logical fallacy. We also have many other creation accounts from other traditions which occurred "suspiciously close" to that time. Who's to say one of those isn't more accurate? Who's to say that that wasn't just the oral tradition at the time when humans devised written word as a means of transmitting knowledge?

But this premise is a false one, and despite the absence of writings, there are numerous other indicators for evidence of speech: I sited the recalling of a human name, king, queen, nation, war, folksong or liturgy. These are recallable without writings.
Huh? So oral tradition predates writing. Explain how this demonstrates that speech can be traced historically in absence of writing.

Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.

Edited by bernerbits, : -of-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 8:54 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4055 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 260 of 268 (428205)
10-15-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 8:54 AM


Re: Speech and communication
double post

Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 8:54 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4055 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 261 of 268 (428208)
10-15-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 9:03 AM


scientists - linguists and biologists, such as 'THIS POSES A QUANDARY FOR EVOLUTION, INDEED IT DOES'; 'TOUGH ONE FOR EVOLUTION',
Linguists are not biologists and should not be considered authorities on the subject of evolution. These sound like things a creationist would say, or they are being taken out of context.

A quick forum search for "quandary" and "tough one" yields nothing. Nice attempt at misdirection there, but you are clearly lying now.

Show one direct example of a scientist expressing that evolution is a problem, where neither the scientist nor the journalist quoting the scientist has a prior known creationist agenda. And not just "open questions". Open questions are not the silver bullet you claim they are.

Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.

Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 9:03 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 262 of 268 (428209)
10-15-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 8:54 AM


Bugableblab again
With the latter, no speech in any other life form, is a manifest and indisputable fact.

There you went and used that undefined word again. You have 24 more hours to work on a clear and precise definition of bugableblab. Get on it so this thread can carry on.

Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 8:54 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 10-29-2007 7:13 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 263 of 268 (428313)
10-15-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 8:54 AM


Continued failure of a bankrupt argument
With the latter, no speech in any other life form, is a manifest and indisputable fact.

But this is false according to the common definition of speech as noted and discussed in Message 1 of this thread:

Now to determine whether this "speech endowed" characteristic appears in other animals we need a definition of what we mean by "SPEECH" that we can agree on.

speech –noun 1 . the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity.
2 . the act of speaking: He expresses himself better in speech than in writing.
3 . something that is spoken; an utterance, remark, or declaration: We waited for some speech that would indicate her true feelings.
4 . a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker before an audience for a given purpose: a fiery speech.
5 . any single utterance of an actor in the course of a play, motion picture, etc.
6 . the form of utterance characteristic of a particular people or region; a language or dialect.
7 . manner of speaking, as of a person: Your slovenly speech is holding back your career.
8 . a field of study devoted to the theory and practice of oral communication.
9 . Archaic. rumor.

—Synonyms 1. parlance, parley, conversation, communication. Speech, language refer to the means of communication used by people. Speech is the expression of ideas and thoughts by means of articulate vocal sounds, or the faculty of thus expressing ideas and thoughts. Language is a set of conventional signs, not necessarily articulate or even vocal (any set of signs, signals, or symbols that convey meaning, including written words, may be called language): a spoken language. Thus, language is the set of conventions, and speech is the action of putting these to use: He couldn't understand the speech of the natives because it was in a foreign language.

I think we can agree that definition (1) is the appropriate definition, and that this corresponds with the "Speech is the expression of ideas and thoughts by means of articulate vocal sounds, or the faculty of thus expressing ideas and thoughts" under synonyms. Thus a member of the "speech endowed" kind of organisms would have the "ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture."

This has not been shown to be a false definition, nor has a different definition been provided that could be compared to it (that does not invoke a tautological begging the question falsehood) to show any uniqueness of kind in the speech of humans rather than a difference in degree.

This thread is now at 263 posts and IamJoseph has been totally unwilling or unable to either provide a distinctive definition or withdraw his assertion of uniqueness, and argument that relies on a definition of speech to be valid.

This is not debate in good faith, rather the obstinate denial of reality.

... conclusion: this is casino science.

Like palming the pea, this kind of steadfast obfustication rather than clarity of argument (with definition and logical development) is meant to hide the bankrupted argument.

There is no debate here, the issue of speech being a difference in degree and not in kind is settled by the arguments that have been put forward and the lack of refutation.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 8:54 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1779 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 264 of 268 (431080)
10-29-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by AdminNosy
10-15-2007 11:33 AM


Re: Bugableblab again
I took a day off and thought it over. Empirically, scientifically and mathematically, speech =

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN AND A DRIVE-IN MOVIE.

Beware of imitations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by AdminNosy, posted 10-15-2007 11:33 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Wounded King, posted 10-29-2007 1:34 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2205 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 265 of 268 (431125)
10-29-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by IamJoseph
10-29-2007 7:13 AM


Re: Bugableblab again
Well now that is one specific definition, unfortunately there are any number of animals that can participate in KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN AND A DRIVE-IN MOVIE. Is the capitalisation required?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 10-29-2007 7:13 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by IamJoseph, posted 10-30-2007 6:02 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1779 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 266 of 268 (431248)
10-30-2007 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Wounded King
10-29-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Bugableblab again
CAPS are required here. Over "ONE" kind only. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Wounded King, posted 10-29-2007 1:34 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1779 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 267 of 268 (431979)
11-03-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by anglagard
09-22-2007 11:56 PM


In summary, I think the topic is exhausted itself. It cannot be said there was a deficiency in correctly defining speech, because the preamble agreed the definition is a problem, affirmed by a host of scientists; this form of definition problem is also consistant with the issue of defining life.

Its opposition retreated to defending itself only by this definition issue, thereby deflecting its own inabilities in disputing speech is unique to humans, and not a dot on the thread of common communication.

Conclusion: The inability to know or define an exacting definition of speech, does not mean it is not unique: it is, by a factor of 1: all communications of other life forms.

SUGGESTION: Consider the impacts if speech is indeed a difference in kind than degree. If anyone dares.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by anglagard, posted 09-22-2007 11:56 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Wounded King, posted 11-03-2007 10:15 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2205 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 268 of 268 (431981)
11-03-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 9:28 AM


Could you translate that sentence into english, or alternatively into anything that makes sense.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 9:28 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019