MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Principles of Applied Epistemology (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 38, 39, 40  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I have belatedly got my own entry in the Linguistic Hall of Shame http://skepticalhumanities.com/2013/12/

I suppose I ought to feel flattered but the depressing nature of the writing dulls my pleasure. It is not that Mr Newbrook lacks any gifts as a writer (though he does), it is the nature of the arguments he deploys. Technical to ... er.... a fault.

Specialists can only think in terms of their specialism and AE exists to criticise from outside the specialism. That is where many of you go wrong with Conspiracy Theories. As both Ishmael and I constantly point out, it is entirely fatuous arguing whether Kennedy's head should jerk backwards or forwards -- once you have established that either is theoreticallly possible it is time to move on.

The same is true of Mr Newbrook's arguments. He cannot see that it is purposeless to laboriously line up some technical assumption or other to shoot down an argument of mine. He will never realise that the current state of his chosen profession, linguistics, is nowhere near sufficiently advanced for anyone to have any confidence in these assumptions. Not one. I know because I've spent twenty years wandering amongst them. They are just 'chat'. Learned chat to be sure but chat nevertherless.

Only if you were taught the assumptions by authority figures, would you suppose that they were (for all intents and purposes) self-evidently true. Then of course you can use them to shoot me or any outsider down with a quick rat-a-tat-tat.

The same thing happened, if you remember, with our 9/11 arguments. You simply cannot make sound technical assumptions about what ought or ought not to happen when a large airplane flies into a large buildings. Civil engineering is just not that advanced. At most you can argue your corner with a little modesty but dogmatism is right out.

You will note though how dogmatic Mr Newbrook is throughout. Of course the same is true of me but (and this is what AE enjoins on us) my dogmatisim is all my own. I created every argument in THOBR. Mark's arguments are shared by every other academic linguist in the whole world. Even if he is right and I am wrong, I think mine are the more valuable.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And what "dogma" you espouse is founded upon Epistemological principles, which are principles that even your opponents might grant, were it not for the implications to their own pet field.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Epistemological principle is the only basis upon which to establish any notion pretending to "truth".

Evidence is next to useless.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think you are slightly misunderstanding 'evidence'. The problem is that in most of the areas we are dealing with, evidence takes the form of 'expert testimony' where the expert is not stating actual findings -- as per forensics in a criminal trial -- but expressing opinions that he regards as being true because they are universally shared with his expert peers.

Unlike forensic pathology, linguists have absolutely no idea how little they know. This is an example of Newbrook when referring to me

For instance, he believes that two diachronically related languages could equally well be related in either order. For most such cases this is simply false: it is easy to show, both by internal evidence and by cross-linguistic evidence on the nature of linguistic change, that ...)


No linguist can pass the Harper Test: Demonstrate any language that came before any other language. Since there is no case of a known chronological change [not one single case!] it is impossible for linguists to come up with any internal or cross-linguistic rules that characterise such a change.

But notice that Newbrook expresses the situation as being 'a simple' truth. He really does believe it is true in the sense that, say, DNA evidence is true.

PS Even if we accepted that linguists believed certain language developments in good faith, the idea that they possess the statistical skills to draw reliable rules from these cases is frankly laughable.

PPS I don't know what 'diachronically' means. Nor would 99% of the readers of the website he is posting on. Conjure what that implies.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I don't know what 'diachronically' means. Nor would 99% of the readers of the website he is posting on. Conjure what that implies.


It means always the same thing: "I am an expert."

In this context, the implication is more completely rendered thus: "I am an expert; you are not; trust me."

Such an implication is included in an essay only when the author suddenly realizes (in the course of composing his rebuttal) that he lacks any argument that would prove convincing to a reasonably intelligent though uneducated reader (AKA: Any given six-year-old).

Surprisingly, few writers are shocked by this realization to an extent sufficient to prompt a reexamination of their conclusions.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I think you are slightly misunderstanding 'evidence'.


No. I am just making a broader claim than objecting to the author's reverence for authority. I have made this point elsewhere but should more clearly express my case.

In science, evidence has absolutely no value except where it refutes a probability.

This means that anytime anyone anywhere says, "This conclusion is supported by [insert relevant fact here]", they are not constructing a scientific argument. In fact, their argument is wholly without merit.

Applied Epistemology in Essence:
A thing can be known only in so far as it is probable. And what is probable is assumed. What is probable is assumed until rendered impossible by facts with which it is definitively inconsistent.

As one assumption is rendered impossible, what remains probable is immediately assumed. There is never an unknown. Just as England is never without a monarch, we are always in possession of the truth. As we eliminate what was once thought probable, we replace it with what remains so.

Our assumptions require no supporting evidence. Our assumptions are derived from principles of probability. This is why we assume "what is, is what was", wherever "what was" is a blank slate, uncolored by artifacts. We assume identity between the past and the present because the present is the most likely product of a past with which it is identical.

Artifacts and evidence are unsuitable as the basis of conjecture. Artifacts and evidence are useful only when they definitely refute our assumptions.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

When we assume that what was is what is, we assume the cause we can't see from the effect we can see. And the assumption we make is identity. We assume identity between what was and is because stasis is always more probable than change itself. Though over time, stasis becomes less and less probable, it never becomes less probable than any specific, possible change. So we eliminate all possibility of stasis before attempting to substitute for it any specific change we might posit.

This process of elimination and substitution occurs simultaneously: An artifact inconsistent with stasis forces the substitution of a specific change (whatever change is next-most probable to stasis and not rendered impossible by the evidence).

In the scientific world, this practice of assuming causes from effects is not typically acknowledged as valid. A given effect is thought to be the plausible attribute of any possible cause, absent a theory to connect the two. But in Applied Epistemology, we advance that causes can be assumed even where all we know are effects. We don't even have to have a theory to explain the connection (let alone a plausible theory).

What is true is only ever what is most probable and, therefore, we can generally assume a cause for any observed phenomenon and remain as generally confident in our assumption, until that assumption is rendered impossible by some evidentiary fact with which it is inconsistent.

For example; by appealing again to identity, we can assume that anywhere the same effect is observed, the same cause is responsible. Thus we have the AE principle, 'Same effect, same cause'. This assumption, though shocking to some, is appropriate; for consistency is always more probable than inconsistency. Regardless of circumstance, consistency never becomes less probable than any specific inconsistency.

Chart:
A => B
? => B

If A is known to cause B, what is B's most probable precedent wherever B is observed?


If two rocks roll down a hill, Applied Epistemologists rightly assume the same motivator propelled both. If we know nothing else about the rocks and their motion, we know at least that much. If we should learn why one rock was rolled, we would instantly learn the same for the other; for consistency is probable (and thus true) absent evidence to the contrary. Even if we can't yet explain how the the same motivator operated in the second case, we would yet assume it, lacking any evidence to rule it out.

To be clear: We might not be confident in our conjecture but we would make it. Our confidence would grow by seeking evidence to the contrary and then failing to find it.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Thanks Ish very useful.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Stop using your other pen-name, Ishmael.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think there is a subtle difference of method.

Ish is a pioneer of Applied Epistemology.

Wile is an advocate of Applied Trickery, which involves the application of lunar calendars, time tunnels, legal highs, imbibing copious quantities of alcohol, falconry, deer hunting and megaliths, to induce ecstasy.

It could be that you folks have thought your methodology through a tad more than I have........ and I admit, on considered reflection, the trial S and M sessions at a Dorset hillfort were an unfortunate detour away from the Main Project. Come to think about it, I also probably shouldn't have bound a maiden to a historic oak at Bishops Dyke.(I especially regret leaving her overnight, as this was not a strictly scientific trial..).

Still, I will defend my method, to my (early) grave....
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mark Newbrook returns to the attack, this time on Applied Epistemology.

Another author of this kind is Mick Harper, who, as discussed last time, presents some astounding and inadequately supported views regarding the history of English (and of other European languages). Harper also proclaims, by way of methodological background to these ideas, a supposedly novel research methodology for historical linguistics and indeed for the humanities generally, which he titles 'Applied Epistemology'.

He seems to have developed this notion in response to what he perceives as sloppy and tendentious reasoning on the part of mainstream linguists, historians etc. In his view, the errors in question are often so basic and so damaging that a new 'paradigm' of research is required, much more securely grounded in logic and the theory of knowledge. Harper's treatment of these matters is less than persuasive
.

This is all good knockabout stuff but Mark now starts making the classic error of trying to be fair to his opponent.

The most that can be said in his favour is that he occasionally spots a weak or inadequately explicit piece of argumentation in mainstream work.

I don't recall Newbrook actually mentioning any examples though I would have thought this would alone justify my work. If he truly believes it then he himself should bring these arguments to the attention of his colleagues. Wild horses etc.

But this is not a sufficient basis for erecting (or purporting to erect) an entire novel methodology. And indeed Harper's 'Applied Epistemology' does not appear significantly different from the methods actually used in the mainstream, where the philosophical background issues are already very familiar.

This is slightly odd. If I am using orthodox methods (even if I have erroneously claimed credit for them) then the results should be worth something.

Harper rejects mainstream scholars' conclusions -- but he offers little valid criticism of the methods used to reach them'

I am surprised by this since most of the book is precisely about how scholars get to their conclusions -- and it's not via the evidence. They might be invalid in Mark's eyes but by God I do offer them!

In addition, Harper himself argues weakly and tendentiously in various places

But not in others presumably .... again, which other places, Marko? My criticisms are so root and branch that any that aren't weak-and-tendentious must by definition be fairly important.

sometimes also displaying inadequate knowledge of the facts;

So ... sometimes not. This is an important concession since most mortally outraged critics denounce revisionist work in toto. eg a critic of Megalithic Empire saying 'there are mistakes on every page'.

he often treats the evidence and reasoning against mainstream views and in support of his own as much stronger than they actually appear to be.

He can't help himself! So 'often' he doesn't presumably. My God, what would I give to get hold of Mark's annotated copy of The History of Britain Revealed.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Monseigneur Newbrook will be shocked, both by the message and sneaky bit of subliminal advertising at the end of this video on proto english.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXOr47EJ1E

Happy wren whacking.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is from a (very bad) Newsnight piece a few years ago. They asked me to appear but I was shyer then.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Less Wrong

Today I discovered a site that may be of some real value to the development and codification of AE principles. In fact, they may well have done all of this work for us. It's called LessWrong.com.

This is the site as described by Milo Yiannopoulis...
LessWrong urged its community members to think like machines rather than humans. Contributors were encouraged to strip away self-censorship, concern for one’s social standing, concern for other people’s feelings, and any other inhibitors to rational thought. It’s not hard to see how a group of heretical, piety-destroying thinkers emerged from this environment — nor how their rational approach might clash with the feelings-first mentality of much contemporary journalism and even academic writing.
I have not yet perused the site myself but I am looking forward to exploring all that is there.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
Nassim Nicholas Taleb of Black Swans fame says that it is impossible to be an expert on something that moves. I think by "moves" he means a system.

So your medical degree and experience in surgery makes you an expert in opening up bodies, but your economics degree means sweet FA when trying to tell the economic future.

That's why your principle won't work when you talk to your car mechanic.


For those of us who wonder how on earth the media pundits, experts and intelligentsia can so consistently get it wrong. I highly recommend this insightful and amusing article by Nassim Nicholas Taleb: The Intellectual Yet Idiot

https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.76llcvwdq
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 38, 39, 40  Next

Jump to:  
Page 17 of 40

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group