[language] Sensationalism in Science and Philosophy

[H.M. Hubey]

<><><><><><><><><><><><>--This is the Language List--<><><><><><><><><><><><><>


The discussion is closed but there is no reason why others can't read
what I wrote.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sensationalism in Science and Philosophy
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:57:48 -0400
From: "H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh at mail.montclair.edu>
To: The LINGUIST Network
<linguist at linguistlist.org>,ploch at languages.wits.ac.za,
dan_everett at sil.org


I would like to thank Dr. Ploch for his long post clearing the air and
clarifying the confused state of matters.

I would also like to add a few comments which are germane.

First of all, these discussions are extremely important for linguistics.

Around the 1930s  people like Paul Samuelson were known as
"mathematical economists". Today "economist" means "mathematical
economist". And the term "literary economist" is reserved for those
who would like to litter the landscape with tossed word salads.
To me a person is a "literary economist" like Jules Verne is a
"literary physicist". Obviously, Verne was a science fiction
writer. One day there will also be "literary linguists".

The times are changing, and they always did.

Around 1950 "computer" was a human, like an engineer, or
accountant. Hence the words for machines had the adjective
"automatic" in front of it e.g. EDVAC, UNIVAC etc, because at that
time sophisticated-machines were called "automatic".

One day, the adjective "mathematical" will not be necessary when
using the word "linguist".

Over the last 300 years or so strange things have happened and
strange ideas have become sold as 'truth'. I was shocked to find
one of my students put on her web page that she 'practices wiccan'.
All this is due to lack of knowledge about what science is. And it is
not really very recent, but has been going on for centuries.

The great [anti] hero of movies and films moved into the science
field and usurped it. The earliest such event was the ridicule
heaped upon Isaac Newton and his "mathematics" by the philosopher
Berkeley (and his cronies who called Newton to their "court" and
[allegedly] demolished his whole edifice) who today is not known for
much more than what can best be explained as "what I don't see does
not exist." The story of science has been told incorrectly by those
who had a lot to lose from its successes. Let us not forget that
Newton did "natural philosophy" (not "physics").

The best explanation of why science developed the way it did and
why it had to essentially this deterministic path is in August Comte's
book. (Unfortunately, I could only read the English translation by
Andreski, not the original French.) But he too was put away by those
who had much to lose, and who did not understand what was written.

Then during this century we had Feyerabend who "proves" that
witchcraft is science. When he gave this talk at Stanford a student
asked him why he does not fly brooms instead of airplanes, and his
answer was "I understand planes but not brooms."! How can this
con-artist even show is face anywhere?

Then finally, the dam burst when that ignoramus Searle decided to
do one better and wrote his little work on why there will never be
intelligent machines. There was a companion article in the Scientific
American by the philosopher couple Mr/Ms Churchland. It is only
too painfully clear that Searle does not even understand what was
written, and has no ability to even think of complex issues in that
article of his in Scientific American. But this is all what
post-everything
movement is about. There was a great deal of ridicule of Searle, which
like a true con-man he merely termed "hostility". But it looks like the
tide has turned. The big attack was launched by two physicists,
Sokol and Bricmont, and it was the hoax article which they got
published in a prestigious journal. In fact, one can find the website
where there is a "postmodernism generator". It creates a new
postmodernist article automatically everytime you click on the
button. That is how much gibberish there is in that movement
which, to me, includes people like Feyerabend, Searle, and Kuhn.

Nothing succeeds like success, and it looks like things are going
back to sanity.

All of this is not much more than earlier replays of what Bill Gates
did to the world (mostly America). A much more reliable operating
system Linux is available for free. Just think a minute. If there were
free cars outperforming Lexus, Benz, Infiniti and BMW, how long
would these manufacturers stay in business? The WebServer Apache
was so good that there is even a version of it that runs on Gates'
Windows operating systems and yet he still sells his IIS. Why?
Most people say that they use Windows only because they have
to use MS-Office and that because their old files are in these
packages. But there is Star-Office, which is probably still free and it
produces basically MS-Office compatable files. So why does Bill
Gates still hold the world by its testicles?

That is the same reason why Feyerabend, Kuhn, Searle are still
enjoying a kind of [anti] hero fame. Who are they fighting and
why are they so popular?

Obviously, I recommend reading Popper, Comte, and others
who wrote on science like Mach, Frank, Paulos, Schroedinger,
etc. Their works are less "heroic" than those of Feyerabend, Searle
and Kuhn but they are much closer to the mark on how science
is and was really done. And that is why linguists should broaden
their readings to others than those who are greatly popular in the
"mainstream". Look at Gates' Windows and Office? Free products
are better than those. That speaks volumes about the mass
marketing of products and ideas.



--
M. Hubey

hubeyh at mail.montclair.edu
/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey

---<><><><><><><><><><><><>----Language----<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Copyrights/"Fair Use":  http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow things
such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education
about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's
important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express
your own works -- only the ability to express other people's.
Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are
important considerations.

You are currently subscribed to language as: language at listserv.linguistlist.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-language-4283Y at csam-lists.montclair.edu