/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11600898
That depends. What is your definition of a pseudoscience?

at most you may be able to explain why some grammar rules as cognitively simpler to grasp rather than others. What about our brains are predisposed at a younger age to pick up language rules.
But that is is it. Everything else is pretty close to aesthetic judgments.

>>11600912
I suppose it would lie in how much of linguistics is emergent due to the language centers of the brain, and how much is due to the "phenotypic" properties of culture. Looking at this in terms of language variety or uniqueness between the languages we observe, it would seem that a lot of it is a form of "construct", although many of these constructs may be emergent from different, non-language center related centers of the human brain.
I guess ultimately the issue lies in trying to separate these aspects, as clear from above.

>>11600898
It's not as much of a pseudoscience as sociology, but more of a pseudoscience than biology.

>>11600898
>>11600912
>>11600943
Linguistics has well backed, reproducible experiments and a pretty well established theory. Have you guys never taken a basic linguistics 101. This whole “predisposition” and “easier” (which is not exactly true, since production rules aren’t “difficult” or governed by the complexity of their description) grammatical rules are basic misconceptions that get beaten out of you by a basic intro class. There’s a fair amount of work to be done, and linguists often work with researchers in cognition and other fields.
Exactly what about this is “pseudoscience?”

>>11600912
>But that is is it. Everything else is pretty close to aesthetic judgments.
The entirety of science is aesthetic judgments. Any finite collection of data has an infinitude of models fitting that data. We choose which models to believe based on aesthetic principles.

The thing thats funny about linguistics is the insane amount of terminology they’ve come up. For each specific group of phonemes they have like 4 words dedicated to the same thing.

>>11600943
The more field is to politics, the more antiscientific it has to be. And linguistics is rather close to politics. Not as close as sociology, but much closer than biology (and you should notice, that where biology approaches politics, it becomes pseudoscientific as well)

>>11601037
linguistics is just not that important of a field.

There are questions that need to be answered, ill give you that. But what will we do next with information? create a language with simpler syntax?
>no no no, SVO is objectively superior to VSO we proved that with science!!!
jfc

>>11601459
>linguistics has no applications
Speech therapy. Speech recognition. Automated translation. Language pedagogy. Decipherment of historical records. Forensics.

>>11601459
this is literally the opinion of the uninitiated - there's plenty of important applications of linguistics out there
>>11601534
adding onto this:
natural language processing, early development education, and theory of translation.

>>11601259
>And linguistics is rather close to politic
???

>>11601571
1 languages divide nations
2 the premise to putin's annexion of south-eastern Urkaine was that they dared to prohibit russian language
3 jews usurped academia and teach goyim that all alphabet derived from phoenician (secretly hebrew) and christians always played along because bible tells so.
And there probably no field where politics/religion didn't intervene. It's just some fields are corrupted more, other are less influencing.

>>11600943
>but more of a pseudoscience than biology.
kekekek

>>11601534
I thought linguistics was a subset of computer science?

>>11602152
NLP is the subset and interdisciplinary study between Comp Sci+Linguistics

>>11600898
>>11600943
>describing the behavior of groups of humans is pseudoscience
>describing and classifying living organisms by their structure and behavior at varying scales of size is pseudoscience


You people are fucking retarded, I just want you to know that. Try to actually look up what the scientific method is before spouting your retarded opinions about it. The first and most important step of science is MAKING AN OBSERVATION. You cannot do science with observations, i.e. data. Yes, you need to form a hypothesis about your observations, and then test your hypothesis, and update your hypothesis to see whether it was correct or not and attempt to explain why, but none of that shit means anything without first collecting data and making observations.

No observations = no Science.

You can have the coolest most intricate and complex models ever made but if it's not based on actual observations your theory is bullshit.

"complete" models with no observations or supporting data = actual pseudoscience

lots of observations with incomplete models = actual science

>>11602869
(not OP)
It isn't about the topic. The main problem I have with linguistic is that a core principle of linguistics is that language cannot be understood from observation alone.

>>11603200
>a core principle of linguistics is that language cannot be understood from observation alone
Who told you that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0

>is psychology a scam
>is linguistics a scam
>t. engineer

hey some of us still understand and appreciate the world's immaterial studies - no matter how difficult they may be to grasp, or how susceptible they may be to scammers.

science will never go beyond what it is now as long as it's hindered by the idea that only material science matters.

>>11603200
>The main problem I have with linguistic is that a core principle of linguistics is that language cannot be understood from observation alone.
?????????
what do you think IPA, articulation charts, early developmental research, 'the critical period', etc are all based on?

Here's a link to last linguistics thread, for those anons who are interested:

>>11561546

here's the bread:

https://pastebin.com/xfFvkbFE

>>11603761
>pastebin
>>/sci/thread/11561546

>>11603797

What's wrong with pastebin? I was using it to store a template for future generals, but I'll definitely use that site for archives

>>11603912

> I'll definitely use that site for archives
warosu, I mean

>>11603719
Thd critical period part basically says that languages use rules that can never be learned from using the language, and can only be learned because they are hardwired to our brains and we are born with them. Which is both retarded and unfalsifiable.
>>11603916
No idea what your problem is or what you're trying to do.

>>11603936
>Thd critical period part basically says that languages use rules that can never be learned from using the language, and can only be learned because they are hardwired to our brains and we are born with them.
Please quote whre you found it.
first lines of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period
only tell that a child never learned to talk will hardly ever talk. But that seems to me to be the opposite of what you said: If it was hardwired, why would he miss it. It seems like neuroplasticity wrote onto those parts we use for speech with something else.

>>11602152
Every CStard thinks every other field of study is a subfield of CS. It's not.

>>11604272
Isn't it the opposite of what chomskians teach? Was it necessary for their lies to be that gross and explicit that people who would want to oppose would be confused by all the swamp singing bravo to that obvious absurd (as they probably did many times before) so that any opposition would be demoralized and averted for some other field? Because linguistics is too deep into politics (no wonder translators are allowed into the highest corridors, of which they're enormously proud.) imagine dating holy books not when they were supposed to originate or god forbid reinterpreting them. Imagine creating your own tribe with some new dialect and demands of independance. Imagine discovering previous mythology in the bodies of natural languages. Imagine understanding all the nlp-tier magic tricks priests and wizards of the past wove into the structure of our everyday life. Which reminds me of one interesting lecture, of which I'm not sure if he's trippin' or for real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP9ZKVwiJ-E

>>11604272
I'm not saying it makes sense. They basically say there is this device in your brain that lets you acquire language exactly once, then it gets turned off. There are supposedly rules in languages that cannot be learned from using the language, which is inherently unfalsifiable, since if the rule cannot be learned, you have no way of proving it exists. I've had bizarre debates where the linguist claimed that children have no way of learning the rules that govern turning declarative sentences into questions, and at the same time vehemently deny that questions are formed indirectly by forming declarative sentence first, then turning it into a question, when I argued there is no reason to assume so.

>>11604272
I'm not saying it makes sense. They basically say there is this device in your brain that lets you acquire language exactly once, then it gets turned off. There are supposedly rules in languages that cannot be learned from using the language, which is inherently unfalsifiable, since if the rule cannot be learned, you have no way of proving it exists. I've had bizarre debates where the linguist claimed that children have no way of learning the rules that govern turning declarative sentences into questions, and at the same time vehemently denied that questions are formed indirectly by forming a declarative sentence first, then turning it into a question, when I argued there is no reason to assume so, seemingly unable to comprehend it is a necessary assumption for his rule to even exist.

>>11600898
Linguistics in the context of analytic philosophy is one of the most important inquiries in human history.

With just a little bit of reading, you begin to find that questions like: What are numbers? What is a 'thing'? What is an idea? Are some of the most complex and difficult questions that have ever attempted to be solved. You very quickly realise that linguistics is not simply the study of words, but the study of the human mind and how it interfaces with reality.

Analytic or linguistic philosophy may not be something you consider to be science (I personally believe that it is) but with a little reading, anyone would agree that it is one of the most noble intellectual pursuits mankind has ever undertaken.

>>11604386
>>11604948
Linguistics has always been politics. It seems linguistics formed in the first place to justify European imperialism, to explain away the glaring problem that other nations generally spoke languages that are obviously far more complex than European languages, or even the prized Latin. So it was needed to argue that the complexity of those languages actually somehow makes them inferior, and after several rounds of mental gymnastics, lingustics settled on claiming that all languages are equally complex and any metric that would show otherwise is invalid.
>What are numbers? What is a 'thing'? What is an idea? Are some of the most complex and difficult questions that have ever attempted to be solved.
Are you actually fucking retarded?

>>11604967
This is the most humiliating post I've ever seen on /sci/.

>>11604967
>So it was needed to argue that the complexity of those languages actually somehow makes them inferior.
It does: all those affixes are pronouns and other short words the speakers don't recognized anymore. What does it tell about such people? English shorter words are just spacebars not forgotten.
But then again, it's compring apples to oranges: languages are not better or worse, they're just different (those "retarded" languages have their own advantages, but that is also subjective, each feature good in one context can be bad in another)

>>11604967
>It seems linguistics formed in the first place to justify European imperialism
When do you think linguistics formed? Etymologists licked kings' asses for millenia before european imperialism (the best form of imperialism there is) rationalizing their names as it's not dick, it's actually rick, which means rich.

>>11602008
Ironic that you've just politicised linguistics yourself by trying to make it fit your /pol/ worldview. There is ample evidence to show that the writing systems of Europe, the Middle East and South Asia are descended from Phoenician alphabets. Phoenicians weren't Jews either, they were Semites from the Near East that based their alphabet on Egyptian hieroglyphs, literally the people who Jews believe enslaved them...

>>11605232
>There is ample evidence to show that the writing systems of Europe, the Middle East and South Asia are descended from Phoenician alphabets.
Oh! And what evidence could it be? I only know many witnesses of that process. Not because they evidenced it or researched it, but what else should they witness if that's what they were taught in universities as established fact. Which is super weird, because even the nearer events have different interpretations, how could they be so sure about that thing? Makes me think of picrelated.
> Phoenicians weren't Jews either (and other jewish mitosis skipped)
Phoenician alphabet is in exactly the same order hebrew alphabet follows. Every other alphabet is somewhat different. Arabic is the same alphabet plus additional consonants. Persian is arabic plus four numberless letters more.
Evropa is phoenician princess. Evri is jews in russian and I think in hebrew too. We actually discussed it in the previous thread: >>11603628
Now imagine if linguistics were allowed to become true science, when passionless cold analysis would show that every nation name is a slur. Ones are cowards, other are thieves, those belong to that one, even though they won independence, and those are actually that other nation whom bible dictates to eradicate (hypothetically, but just imagine what could then be. Can linguistics be pure science? Of course not. But the world has changed, and now with powers of speciafied ai's and with human minds getting access to unprecedented ammounts of information, it's inevitable that humanities are destined to become more scientifically charged inquiries. And that will challenge the existence of nations maybe even more than our cross-border communication.

>>11604948
Reading your post warms my heart. I also admire this style of doing philosophy. I never felt more more joy and gratitude in my life than in those moments when I was totally absorbed in studying it. No other activity came close to producing such a pure feeling of happiness that it made me feel like all of my life's suffering is justified.

>>11604948
It's really a shame some idiots *cough* Frenchmen *cough* totally ruined the reputation of philosophy. Nowadays, most outsiders think philosophy is just random, opaque gibberish. Instead, proper philosophy is like doing mathematics with words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfWodl10kbI

Is archaeology mostly pseudoscience?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
> The abbreviation "BP" has been interpreted retrospectively as "Before Physics";[1] that refers to the time before nuclear weapons testing artificially altered the proportion of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, making dating after that time likely to be unreliable.

>>11600898
http://esotericawakening.com/elder-futhark-the-secrets-of-the-runes

/thread

>>11606523
Now that is definitely some pseudoscience, but it's not exactly linguistics (which is also not science enough yet or anymore)
connection of the sacred berberic letter ⵣ to is interesting, but vague. You should better compare it to ᛯ (these are different symbols. if all you can see is some rectangles, install universalia or some other font-pack) which could be a bind rune of ᛘ(or ᛉ) with ᛣ, or it could be ᚼ(or ᛡ) which is probably related to russian Ж, mostly because ⵣ is told to sound like z (while Ж is zh) yet there's another sign: ⵥ (which is further from Ж graphically, but closer to it phonetically) and all this beauty could be just a schematic depiction of the Sun, also because Ж pretty much stands for G, which is literally called sol in musical notation, which is told to be relatively recent invention, but I seriously doubt it was inveted from scratch: mucial notation by letters was known even to ancient greeks.
ᚼ(or ᛡ) could be related to ж not only because it stands at the similar position in the alphabet, but also because j can sound as both ʒ and h, roughly speaking. which makes that rune, together with H which turned into russian И [i] an allomorph of I (a double form of it or something) which could go further back to 𓇋 and 𓇌(𓏭)
I also watched the video in the middle of that page you sent (after the main part and before Related Posts and Comments) and I have no idea why he tells that perfect system is 26 (when numeral system takes 27) and that some full ammount of letters "for original root language of the universe" (oh may goat woah) is 29 - no idea where he took it, probably from some "revelation" (direct source, lol)

>>11606782
pt2
Runes he uses isn't original, but some pulling in upon english alphabet (you can see it among other things by rune ᚲ repeating three times (c k q)
He could be right that (he quotes here someone else) english language being somewhat authentic (after all it's name is close to angelic (engels is both english and angels in Dutch, actually I'm lying, they have another suffix for plural form, and angels is engelen) but it's one of the less based elements of my theory, yet one of the most based parts of his rant.
Then he tells that etymology is the universal language, which is very smart. He also seems to be a sincere guy, so I could be the missing links between academic science and the freaks like him, who actually also collect enormous ammount of obscure information on this little-studied subject, they only lack some self-irony and healthy scepticism to distinguish righteous knowledge from ridiculous fabrications (but who of us is not guilty, we all want it all and right now)
He also pronounces etymology as if it's from atom, very interesting interpretation. It's at least poetic, or maybe even accurate, I cannot tell for sure yet.
8 minutes deeper into his lecture, and I got irritated by his not exactly scientific approach, but when he mentions that rune=ram it made me go hm... because golden fleece is zlato runo, which could explain argonauts' trip full of dangers for some fur with golden pieces, it didn't make much sense, but if it was some furry parchment, it makes perfect sense: it was on a tree, protected by some mighty snake, which correlated norse mythology of tree of life where probably Odin hanged for three days when he conceived them. Also the trip took place after LinearB was lost and Alphabet wasn't acquired yet(and this interpretation btfo the phoenician origin)
And when he began saying lamb is the light because lamb is the lamp - I got overirritated and stopped at around 10:00 so I will maybe return to his babble later. don't disconnect.

>>11606782
>connection of the sacred berberic letter ⵣ to is interesting
wakaba swallowed picrelated between to & is.

>>11606782
there is nothing pseudo about it, it is all energy like everything else, you just lack the ability to comprehend it yet mate. I doubt you even watched the presentation so why comment it?

https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/watch/tesla-light-sound-sanskrit_uI3uwzTuznKZWS2.html

>>11606849
over three minutes of mishmash presentation with some annoying music and also
> bigbang
now that shit is definitely pseudo, you fell for abrahamic bait.
Even though later they keep on speaking of indian cosmology, which has nothing to do with big bang.
then zomg! pythagoras theorem (and in one of its worst representations! take picrilated instead)
> physicists liked Vedanta
ad hominem doesn't make Vedanta more based, it only makes those physicists more of some high-priests (no need to argue, I understand your position, I just explained mine)
> > late in the 1985, Swami Vivekananda wrote a letter to Tesla asking him to demonstrate
lolwut! Was it supposed to be 1935? (also in a previous slide he was named Wivekanada, such a scientific precission you freaks demonstrate)
> > he understood that when speed increasese, mass must decrease
wtf am I doing to my head!
I'm sorry, kid, I dropped it in the middle.

>>11601534
I dont know, you can use every and any language to do that and they could be invalid if somehow we develop an "improved" and soulless way of communication.
I think it's more related to art and engineering and you can manipulate it's function.

>>11606849
pt3
10:00 and on: (the video is not mirrored, let's hope that link doesn't die any time soon)
> qrstu christu, because this is christian science
which makes it no more science than some islamic science
> lmn, not lemon, lumen (light)
> abca defgi, abracadabra, to create with opening words
> diplomacy mad policy, moon-light thin gloom (embedded with the moon light, this is the power of english language), it's a language of spells, good spells, god's spells, gospels
> weird nightmares withering dreams, south so hot, north not hot
(not exact match, also not science at all, poetry at most, some gematria-tier play)
> that's just to show you the power of lexigrams
I'm sorry kid, I'm not impressed.
And I don't know if I'm going to look into his rant further, but I'm definitely not going to post it here, because that level of apophenic studies belong to /x/ or who knows where else.
If there's something just incredibly fascinating you really wanted to share, you may post it here in plain text, because probably nobody here is going to watch those two hours of some irrelevant childish half-baked and thoroughly unscientific point of view.

>>11606849
pt3
10:00 and on:
> qrstu christu, because this is christian science
which makes it no more science than some islamic science
> lmn, not lemon, lumen (light)
> abca defgi, abracadabra, to create with opening words
> diplomacy mad policy, moon-light thin gloom (embedded with the moon light, this is the power of english language), it's a language of spells, good spells, god's spells, gospels
> weird nightmares withering dreams, south so hot, north not hot
(not exact match, also not science at all, poetry at most, some gematria-tier play)
> that's just to show you the power of lexigrams
I'm sorry kid, I'm not impressed.
And I don't know if I'm going to look into his rant further, but I'm definitely not going to post it here, because that level of apophenic studies belong to /x/ or who knows where else.
If there's something just incredibly fascinating you really wanted to share, you may post it here in plain text, because probably nobody here is going to watch those two hours of some irrelevant childish half-baked and thoroughly unscientific point of view.

>>11601534
>>11601570
Show some specific examples how linguistics was useful for those fields.

>>11607895
lol, op is right
> Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up

>>11606788
Go back to twitter, sunny.

>>11600898
>Is linguistics mostly pseudoscience?
Kinda yeah