[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 27 KB, 450x222, computational-linguists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11126553 No.11126553 [Reply] [Original]

Non-computational linguistics doesn't even seem to be trying to be a science, just riding on how bad computational linguistics comes off.

>> No.11127414

linguistics is a do-nothing field.

>> No.11127416

have you read wittgenstein yet

>> No.11127457

Lingustics openly rejects the scientific method as useless, so I guess the answer is yes.

>> No.11127680

>>11126553
Do linguists work with models and theories that by virtue of the scientific method laid out by Poppers can be disproven and thus rejected?
Yes, therefore at least some linguistics fields are a science.

>> No.11127690

>>11126553
>being this 2004

>> No.11129151

>>11127680
You know nothing about linguistics if you think the answer is yes.

>> No.11129170

>>11127414
Seems to me things like reconstructing Proto-Indo-European is a big accomplishment. Something like that could be tested if a previously unknown written language is discovered (and probably has been)

>> No.11130517

>>11126553
>context free grammars
>evolutionary grammars
>formal languages
>propositional logic

These are all valid fields. Language is at the heart of science because everything we communicate we use language to do so. Every model, experiment, finding must be expressed in language.

In fact, models only exist in language. They have no real or non-symbolic structure.

Adding the word computational to things is almost meaningless

>> No.11132332

>>11129151
>>"Some fields of linguistics were using the scientific method."
>"No."
There are "proper" reductions / simplifications.