chockfull

You are crossing the line on that other thread with the namecalling. I am responding and am not lilly white in that category. There is no reprimand that could be handed out on that thread that would not include your behavior as either the #1 or #2 offender. Then cool yourself down just like everyone else has to do that participates. Walk away. The fact that you are "trying to cool things down" while also controlling not allowing others to post on the thread is an abuse of the mod power. If the thread crosses the line on rules then it should be shut down by an uninvolved mod. You have a conflict of interest moderating that thread in any fashion. As your opposing viewpoint I will vouch for you that you never edited or chastised anyone with your mod powers. And shutting down the thread and re-opening it, while violating a conflict of interest, in my opinion isn't an abuse that is of the magnitude where I would request your mod status be revoked. But make no mistake, if I did see those other actions - editing or chastising while arguing, I would call for your mod status to be revoked.

This is getting quite pedantic. I am not dismissing innate human abilities, like that of making up Pig Latin, making up gibberish sounds, making up sounds that could sound a little more like language, making up interpretations and prophecies, etc. I'm not dismissing the possibility of people faking a séance to get attention. I'm not dismissing an actual séance where people talk to spirit guides, I'm not dismissing those things. What I am dismissing is labeling dissimilar things as similar for the purpose of research. Now I see why a linguist who is NOT BORN AGAIN would do this. He sees things that are supposedly another language that wasn't studied by the speaker, then he sees someone SIT, someone faking it, someone making up sounds, reads an account of a séance. All these things seem the same to him. As a linguist, whose primary field involves classifying language, labeling this phenomena is the first step in studying it. All these things have in common that there was a speaker, one or more listeners, and the sounds spoken were not understood. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE SIMILARITY HERE. Then I see ATTEMPTS to classify the sounds by laws of language. I see NO PROOFS, but I see conclusions reached like by Samarin that he marvels at the ability of the human mind to make sounds that sound like they could be languages. Could this happen by Samarin hearing ACTUAL SAMPLES OF GENUINE SIT? Yes it could. Would he be able to distinguish between GENUINE SIT and FAKED SIT? No he would not. He could not understand either utterance, and already has defined the term to include both genuine or faking AS THE SAME THING. That in a nutshell is my issue with the term "free vocalization". Now I'm hoping once everyone meditates, takes their meds, has a drink, has a good night sleep, or whatever else it is that they do to CALM DOWN and get over being mad that this logic won't escape them. But my hopes aren't very high.

Then instead of abusing mod power you should have asked another mod to do it and waited until they did. I probably won't continue a conversation with you because of the dishonesty involved in this action shutting down opposing viewpoints. I would suggest at this point that you are too spun up or upset or whatever to continue this conversation. I have brought up valid logical opposing points to automatically classifying anything in this by the term "free vocalization". In my opinion, this is winning an argument by defining the terms in a dishonest way to obtain an advantage. It ONE MORE TIME is circular logic to define the term "free vocalization" to include any act of producing a phonetic result that someone else doesn't understand, then to supposedly "prove" that SIT is "free vocalization" by saying it has a similar phonetic result that isn't understood. There is NO PROOF involved here at all, simply a too broad definition, then a lot of harping on similar characteristics with other IMO completely non-similar events. Even if I concede the definition, IT PROVES NOTHING ABOUT SIT. But you are not treating the subject matter honestly. I believe that SIT can be faked, and depending on how closely you scrutinize the result, the fakery could be as simple as we used to do speaking Pig Latin as children.

My argument with the term stands. It was invented by people trying to evaluate the charismatic movement and contains inappropriate inclusions, including medium conversations with spirit guides. The minute you guys can show me how that is included in whatever you were performing in acting classes, I'll withdraw my opposition to the term.

Wow.

You sound pretty lost here again. "Free vocalization" one more time is a made-up term by linguists lumping together occurrences of languages they didn't understand themselves and the speakers stated they didn't know. The fact they made this term up to be a "kitchen sink" type of a catch-all description, and thus it is not narrow enough to use in a hypothesis test, just goes to illustrate that THEY ARE NOT PROVING ANYTHING. All studied samples fit my "free mouthnoiseization" definition too. What does this prove? You got it. NOTHING. I made up the word to include the samples. Completely wrong. "Free mouthnoiseization" is a term that describes SIT, arguments with relatives, made up child-like languages, and blowing bubbles with vocal action. The concept DOES exist - I just introduced it. Just like "free vocalization". You can observe the phenomenon ANY TIME YOU LIKE, by listening to relatives argue, someone blow bubbles, make up languages, or SIT. It can be reproduced at will easily among those unfamiliar with it. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by the same group of people. They may not understand the term, just like they may not understand the term "free vocalization". It is an invented term. The concept DOES EXIST - I have the concept, I described it and communicated it. It can be reproduced. It can be easily taught. Here, I'll teach it in one easy sentence. "Stick your head under water, blow bubbles, and make a MMMMM sound". See? Now you are "free mouthnoising" it. It PROVES NOTHING MORE to use that term than it is to use the "free vocalization". In fact, those two terms are remarkably similar, even though I just made it up. And the irony of this paragraph is that Raf is describing EXACTLY THE ISSUE WITH THE TERM "free vocalization" here. False equivalence (SIT, medium conversation), a shared trait (a language others in the room don't understand). But, like "free mouthnoiseization", there are too many differences between a medium conversation, someone SIT, and someone making up a gibberish language for them to be REALISTICALLY CONSIDERED the same by anyone with half a brain. Please, by all means, keep using that made up term. It means exactly NOTHING with respect to proof, just like it always has. But hey, you have to have SOMETHING to cling to when logic fails. Raf, I really don't want to let facts get in the way of your ignorant rant here, but you really ought to read a little more on the subject. Here's one example. It's a college paper. Now I know how you are regarding ad hominem attacks on college students, but I really think you ought to read this guy's paper, as the terms he uses and defines are common ones in the field, they are clearly written and easy to understand, and it WOULD make you look a little less stupid to understand the same terms that anyone with a background in the scientific method knows: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Hypothesis-Testing-381176.html Yeah, it's tedious to keep calling you on stating opinion as fact. And the namecalling is obnoxious. Or you hesitate to share it BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE IT. I'm sure I will subject their samples to no less a level of rigorous questioning that say, you have to socks here last page on his account. To do less wouldn't be fair. And the definitions you accept without scrutiny ABSOLUTELY lead you to ONE WAY of looking at this. You will never get past this until you can get honest about the terms you are using.

Not so easy. How do you propose statistics to prove whether or not it's a human language? The fact that the linguist and people in the studies don't understand it doesn't prove that. You COULD make attempts towards that by posting up samples up on a website and offering a reward for anyone recognizing the language. That still wouldn't prove it conclusively but would strengthen the case. But nobody has done that. Free vocalization is DEFINED to include human made-up gibberish languages, people talking to spirit guides, and MAYBE a genuine sample of SIT. (I can't tell that for sure because I haven't seen ANYONE in these studies write up their samples yet.) You can't prove something where you define the term to mean what you are trying to prove. That is a circular logic fallacy. You are not understanding the very clear point that you can't prove something that by nature you are defining to be something. So NO, that is not proven. Using a circular logic fallacy is NOT proof. And you not understanding it is you being dishonest about it. YOU are lying saying it is proven.

And probability theory / statistics theory is EXACTLY what is used in hypothesis testing. And sample space IS the complete population that you are modeling. But please, enlighten all the readers here about your erudite understanding of this field and the terms in it SEEING AS YOU JUST FOUND OUT THAT TERM EXISTED in the last page. Instant expertise, I call it. Or, more accurately, you DON'T UNDERSTAND the terms, are struggling to come up to speed with what is necessary to actually do scientific method testing, and are trying to save face in the process. And all you have to do to prove I'm lying is SHOW EVIDENCE that ONE THING you are claiming as PROVEN ACTUALLY IS. Show the evidence, research, statistics. But you can't. So the evidence points to YOU being the one lying. There are a lot of names and accusations flying around the thread. "Ad hominem" specifically refers to the logical fallacy of discrediting research by attacking the researcher. You and I aren't really presenting research on this thread, so "ad hominem" really wouldn't apply to our discussion, regardless of the civility, name-calling, etc. present or not. And yes, it's a difficult topic.

You know, you would be less of a tool if you weren't trying to act all high and mighty surrounding something that has simple definitions on the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof There are 3 definitions below this, and one points to the same Wikipedia reference to "Scientific Method" that I posted previously. You know, the article that contains definitions of hypothesis test, null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, and confidence intervals? Those terms which you don't have a clue about, to the extent you are saying "there is no such thing as sample space"???? We went through this exercise a couple pages ago, where I went back 4 pages out of 60 and provided AMPLE examples of you misusing "proof". I think during that exchange I challenged you to show ONE thing that WAS proven. You never have.

No, I understand burden of proof, I just disagree with you on what consists of "an affirmative claim". I started my discussion on this thread under the premise of disproving YOUR claim. You are trying to maneuver me into a corner of the "appeal to ignorance" logical fallacy, where you say if someone can't disprove it, then it's true. I don't make that claim. I'm not saying that. I have a nonstop campaign of presenting honesty related to this topic, and using accurate terms. Like not saying "proven" unless it is. Like pointing out issues with research. If you are not acting honestly in your use of the word "proven" then you ARE the target of this. That's your problem.

I seriously doubt you would have believed it even if you were there in the room.

You started the thread, you made the accusations that everyone SIT in modern day is faking it. That is the claim. Therefore by your logic it is your burden of proof to prove. Your tactics are to state as fact opinion, and lie about it to the point where you think people won't see through it. You are doing so here again. Where are SIT speakers making a claim here on this thread? Please point it out to all of the readers, including making the FIRST claim. I let you off the hook on that, saying that since the argument started long before this thread, it was unclear on who had the burden of proof - those stating that SIT is fake and false, or those saying it was genuine. Now you dishonestly are trying to frame the conversation so that you don't have a burden of proof which very clearly you are unable to meet. I see why you are doing it. Fear, knowledge that you can't prove it, not wanting to look bad. But it's still a dishonest approach. You mean how YOU shifted the burden of proof? Your affirmative claim "modern SIT doesn't produce a language". Your further affirmative claim "all those saying they are SIT in modern times are liars and are faking it. Look, not only does this place the burden of proof squarely on YOUR shoulders, but you are also being obnoxious. I didn't start out calling you a liar and a faker, it took about 60 pages of seeing you dishonestly state opinion as fact, to fill the thread with rhetoric, and summarily dismiss any of the opposite positions first-hand anecdotes, all which accepting without question those on your side. You are dishonest. You are lying. You have called people names since the beginning of the thread. I say your testimony of yourself tells the whole story. You lied about SIT while in TWI. And you are lying now about research. Nobody really made that big fat claim. For instance myself. I didn't come here, and start a thread how modern SIT is Biblical SIT. Pretty much to the charismatic Christians in the world, it's not something they NEED to make a claim about. They practice their faith in peace and quiet. For me, I got pulled into an argument by someone acting like a douche@g calling charismatic Christians names like liars and fakers. I got sick of it, so I decided to humor the conversation to see how full of it they were. I see they are plenty full of it, and won't listen to reason. What exactly is it about your behavior on this thread that makes you think you deserve ANYTHING from me? Name-calling and lies don't earn you anything. Yes, it's really clever to look at Wikipedia's definition of "the scientific method", whereby all peer reviewed scientific research papers are all evaluated against, and highlight some of the terms there involved with "proof". The reason I had to be so "clever" was Raf abusing the word "proof" all throughout the thread. Finally, I decided to call him on it. Apparently, since he is unable to show any measure of fact or use of the scientific method that is anywhere near what is used in sociological studies, psychological studies, and virtually all modern research, then he falls back on his next line of defense. Name-calling, and lies. "Cleverness". Wow. That's a new one. I never knew looking up a main term on Wikipedia was so "clever". Hahahaha. There is NO SUCH THING as a sample space. Do you think such a transparent lie is going to stand? A "sample space" is the entire population that you are trying to study. It differs from general population in that it is the entire population that you want to apply the hypothesis test to. The sample space is the pool from which you select your sample. Sample size is the number of samples you use in your study. And again, ignorance should not be mixed with stating opinion as fact. In hypothesis testing, YOU SELECT what the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are. And they equally could be selected to try and prove either side of the argument here. And ONE MORE TIME, where are the samples? Where is the writeup on them? Where is the statement of the hypothesis? Where are the numbers measured? Where is the mean, the standard deviation? Where is the confidence interval? But I'm OVERJOYED to see that we HAVE this information. I'm expecting to see you post up links to it within your next couple of posts. I just love it when we are now discussing PROOF in terms of "what is safer to assume". So you're admitting there is no proof here? And suggesting guidelines on what we should assume about it? Your arguments are so full of logical fallacies you couldn't see the truth if it hit you in the rear. Even your terminology is BS. I don't have "attacks" on research. I am simply asking to see evidence of PROOF that backs up their wild conclusions. I have yet to see any. All you have to do is provide the references to where we can all read it. I guess that's too hard, though. So instead you can just provide some ad hominem attacks on your opposition. I don't have a pity party going on. You are attacking me ad hominem on almost every post now. That's very apparent. That's your problem, not mine.

And without twisting history we can note that basically Paul said "all in Asia be turned away from me". Paul was martyred in somewhere around the 64AD - 70AD timeframes. There were a lot of things that disappeared from the church shortly after the detail of the first generation. That in and of itself should not be taken to be proof of any gifts subsiding, as it's fairly evident that by the 3rd century Christianity was politically influenced and the Pope had established power. There are a lot of ad hominem attacks on this thread. Mostly in an attempt to discredit research writings (someone was called a college student with a paper assignment I recall), and mostly to discredit. Raf subjects me to ad hominem attacks about every 3 posts, telling everyone how I'm dishonest, not interested in true research, etc. Usually the extent of the ad hominem attacks show me that I've presented Raf with something that he doesn't want to face, such as lack of systematic research, calling opinion as fact, etc.

You are both so full of it. What I stated was that the argument started long ago, so establishing which side has the burden of proof based upon rules is a moot point.

Look, for a while I was investigating doctrinal implications here. I never got an answer. My question was "since you claim modern SIT is not Biblical SIT, what changed?" I was looking for some scripture, historical event, etc. that would indicate at this time now you can't SIT any more like they did in Acts. I zero response on that from the people claiming that it's not the same. Oh, one person referred me to look up a commentary on a guy who explained it through dispensationalism or something. So it is completely logical to question that if somehow God can "turn off" the power to SIT all of a sudden, without warning, scripture, natural event, then who's to say that random occurance wouldn't also happen with miracles and other power from God? Look, there's been plenty of discussion on "modern SIT related to Biblical SIT" including a debate over what constitutes "proof". If you don't like the foray into doctrinal questions, then don't discuss them. There are separate threads in Doctrinal for doctrinal related to the verse, and research links. Some people want to discuss doctrinal implications on this thread. If it bothers you, then can you ignore it rather than just expecting everyone to cater to what you want to discuss only? Sure if you state it in that fashion it's flawed. But stated in another fashion, it's a legitimate question regarding the power of God. The other thing I find humorous is that whenever I bring up detailed challenges to research such as the last post, and point out what's the difference between good and shoddy research, rather than refute any of that, Raf takes the "I'm going to pick up my toys and go home" tactic. I guess he thinks maybe readers won't notice that. My bet is they do notice.

Raf, I think you're a tool with all your name-calling. Kisses. But you don't own the internet. And I think you're hilarious trying to use the word integrity along with your approach to this discussion. Regards, chockfull

geisha, I know that JAL video is a sample of some kind. I'm sorry, though, I just can't bear to look at it more than about 10 sec. After knowing that guy in TWI, and knowing about all the havoc he wreaked through the STFI stuff, seeing two failed marriages and another new snake oil group he's starting, I just can't watch him to even give it an honest effort to tell you what I think about whether it's genuine or fake. I hope we can find other samples.

Correct. Good point. We have a thread in doctrinal with links and summaries, but MANY of these studies are not on the internet in any form. This is true also. As a step towards proving your point conclusively, a study COULD state a hypothesis with a null and alternative hypothesis steps, select a sample space that represents the overall population, and measure the hypothesis statistically. Then numbers could be shown at the .05 level indicating a confidence interval of 95% that the hypothesis is true. I haven't seen such a study yet, but one could exist. While that would not prove your point conclusively (according to your accurate caveats above), it WOULD prove a confidence interval that would support a lot more conclusions. In a good study we would have audio / video bytes of the samples, as well as a short bio of the speakers involved including language background. You could also provide interviews with standard questions asked to all sample participants. I suggest that would be also what you would like to see out of any of the anecdotes brought up. At least interviews with standard questions, and a bio. I don't know if it's practical to have obtained audio/video of a miraculous event like someone understanding a tongue spoken. You can't rule this out if the researcher didn't provide access to their resources. Just like you can't rule out anecdotes. Or psychics. Or whatever. And it's not really objective to say "I believe the resources on one side of the argument without proof, but not the other". Or I can point out the difference between good research and what I see here. You've already rejected all the SIT anecdote claims anyway. I've approached the research into SIT as a valid subject of inquiry and review. I just have not seen in the research anything of substance to the point that saying it "proves" anything is a valid conclusion. Which is a shame, because if the linguists/researchers had adhered a little better to the scientific method in doing their research it would put us a lot farther along than where we are. The possibilities for discussion on this topic are 1)Research-based and 2) Doctrinal. You could attempt to answer questions raised on this thread via either approach.

No, someone was examine not "a phenomenon", they were examining "multiple phenomenon". This is easily ascertained by the fact they are even using two words to lump them together - glossolalia, and xenoglossia. The xeno word came from psychic studies. The glossa word came from the charismatic Christian movement. Then some rocket scientist decided to lump both together and make up a third word. "Free vocalization". So I decided that if there was one rocket scientist, there might as well be two. Thus I coined my term "free mouthnoiseization". Since I can decide to include as many different types of "phenomenon" into my definition, then since I made up the word, I can prove that it applies to all these phenomenon. I can even declare it an "innate human ability". See how much of a researcher I am? See how my hypothesis is clear? See how my sample space is really a defined group of people all with the same characteristics? No? Oh, well. It also helped that the person inventing the word DEFINED it to mean the same thing. And eliminated any areas where there might be a difference. You know, like first person vs. third person, two people having an imaginary conversation with themselves vs. praying, the context, etc. But it is complete horse puckey that the same people defining the term now use their definition to "prove" that the things they are covering by it are the same. This is called circular logic. We can examine those anecdotes to a certain extent. It doesn't mean you automatically accept them or reject them. But certainly there is no case for rejecting them summarily yet accepting the samples presented in research cases on faith - you have to have some kind of standard for acceptance of samples. And that should be evident to your audience when writing about it. You're the second person stating this. And I'll say the same thing to you. Please provide me ANY evidence this is true. What samples are there? What scientific method proving this? No, you are presenting that side of the argument as a strawman. That's not the correct argument. Same as yesterday. Free vocalization is a made up word encompassing older words glossolalia and xenoglossia, which studied different things - one was Christian, the other psychic. Basically I get the impression the linguist lumped everything together where someone was speaking a language not understood. I'm amazed at this too. I was amazed to see Raf state it in terms similar to that - it started out as Raf admitting he had faked it, to Raf calling out everyone that everyone faked it and lied to themselves, to looking at studies, to hyper-ventilating thinking the studies that didn't use the scientific method "proved" something, to a whole lot of name-calling and abusive language. I agree it damages the speakers credibility. They don't seem to be able to see this though.

That account has a footnote and a resource reference. So you should be able to go to the actual source for more information. I see more information there about the individual account than I see in any of Samarin's references to test subjects. I find it absolutely hilarious that you are talking about my gullibility in posting up accounts like this, but you find no problem in the fact that Samarin doesn't produce one single reference to any statistics in his studies, nor does he make public any of the test accounts or samples of anybody supposedly doing glossa that are the basis of his studies. So I can't check any of his sources to see if they are valid or not. I think more truthful is that a supernatural claim only needs to be MADE in order for dishonest researchers to attack it. So please explain to our dear readers why you attack the reference of a man in a Catholic mass coming up and trying to speak Persian to the person who SIT, but give researchers a pass when they don't provide individual account references in their studies? And I mean an explanation beyond the "innate human ability" of stupidity?

It's certainly possible. However, it is no reason to take a whole category of claims (psychic, séance related, medium talking to spirit guide) and automatically assume that all of them are faking and so they all fit under a pet term called "free vocalization", call it an "innate human ability", immediately assume that they are doing the exact same thing as Christians SIT, and draw conclusions about them together. That's shoddy research. Again, it's just probability thinking. Like for instance, the probability you are being a jerk right now is about 86.5%.

I will say that excie's advice is good here. AA / NA can be problematic for people in that diseased people who aren't 100% committed to beating the disease can use these groups are a resource for networking to get drugs (NA) or relapse together. I saw more of that related to NA as it's easy to obtain booze anywhere, but not drugs. People were using NA to network for dealers. Other complicit problems are things like I think the slang term is "13 stepping" indicating a mentor or sponsor abusing their status in the group to have sex with an addict. That's the same problem we saw in the ministry with people abusing that position. I still think overall it is an easier route going to recovery with others help sharing your struggles than trying to go it alone in a society that doesn't care.

I did the homework. I couldn't find those terms one time in any of the studies we referenced. I saw no statistics from any research. I saw no numbers, no hypothesis stated in a structured fashion (as the scientific method states to do - null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis). I saw no evidence of the hypothesis changing over different iterations of the experiment like I do with valid scientific studies that actually prove something. I'm not changing terms of the debate. I'm asking you to supply evidence that your overuse of the word "proven" is warranted in any fashion. You are presenting studies in the thread, and using the word "proven" time after time in conjunction with them. Obviously you feel the studies have "proven" something. So let's see the beef here. If you can't do this, expressed in many ways including name-calling, logical fallacy appeals, saying "I'm not doing this", saying it's a "waste of time" or whatever other turns you might do logically to escape from your previous attestations, I am going to be forced to conclude that when you use the word "proven" you are completely talking out your @$$ and also by this point in the conversation you know enough about it to be lying about it.

Just like I'm sure they can look up easily the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis in all of Samarin and Poythress's studies referenced here. And I'm sure they can find a representation of all of these samples Samarin is referring to. Along with the statistical numbers, like mean and standard deviation. Go ahead everyone reading the thread (or the two that still click on the new post button in spite of their better judgement that are left). Find those terms in the studies. Since my point is such a flipping joke anyone following along can see it. Look, you are the one with the vocabulary word "proven" spotting up this thread like diarrhea. This should be easy for you. Why the reluctance?

You're right. You are operating on "proof" that is vastly different than what I mean, and what the term means when you introduce the scientific method. You mean "it's an educated guy in the field that presents his opinion". I mean "scientific method". Here - read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Note the terms for hypothesis, null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis. Then, if you can, point out one such statement in Samarin's study. I couldn't find one. But hey, as you state, maybe I'm twisting his work, interpreting it wrong, am completely dishonest, and all the other namecalling words you are so adept at. All I want is one example where the person who stated a conclusion has it supported by evidence. And evidence meaning here's a sample, here's a hypothesis test, here's the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, and here are statistical numbers that you can check to verify that they used the scientific method correctly and are not just spouting opinion out of their @$$. Just one example. That shouldn't be so hard. Because of a lack of the scientific method in these studies, THEY CAN'T BE VERIFIED, and more importantly, THE HYPOTHESIS CANNOT BE MODIFIED THROUGH ANALYSIS. This is the normal process of PROVING THINGS. If a hypothesis cannot be modified, because it was never stated in a scientific fashion along with its null and alternative, then another scientist or linguist can't come along and verify or improve on your work. Thus the value of the whole effort involves is NIL.