LL-L "Linguistics" 2006.02.12 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 12 February 2006 * Volume 04
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Linguistics" 2006.02.11 (06) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Linguistics
>
> Some seem to feel that linguistic areas such as sociolinguistics,
> anthropological linguistics, semantics, philology and applied
> linguistics are "soft sciences," or they fall into social sciences and
> humanities.  This depends on the way people define "science," I guess.

I think this is one of those places where it's dangerous for people to
choose their own definition. There are some things which pretty much
have to be done, or you can't say you're doing science.

For example, you need to set up theories and show how your theories
could be proved wrong, because there's no way of proving a theory right,
but if we can show what doesn't work when tested, we can make some progress.

You need to record your findings in a way that can be analysed by others
and show how your experiments could be repeated by other scientists so
that they can confirm them for themselves if they're sceptical enough to
want to make sure. Otherwise we've nothing but your own word for it.

There's more to it but without this sort of thing it's not science and
there's a lot of bad science and non-science around. This often has
disastrous consequences, not so much in the scientific world as in the
lives of the millions of people who fall victim to it. In the news in
the UK over the past few decades we've seen lots of people jailed and
lots of children taken from their families due to some researcher's bad
science being taken seriously, all of which could have been avoided if
people just understood what is and isn't science.

Some years ago I saw a programme about history, where students were
asked about certain events in the history of the British monarchy. I was
surprised that many of the students seemed to think they could make up
what they thought happened and write it up as history. There comes a
point where if you're not careful with your facts, what you're doing
becomes pointless. When it comes to being lackadaisical about science,
it can often also become very dangerous.

To consider what could be dangerous about doing bad science in
linguistics, you could think about the damage that could be done if
every etymologist just made up what he couldn't demonstrate, or the sort
of harm you could do by pushing the idea that one language is somehow
more advantageous than another and doing bad science to "prove" it
(perhaps because the government is paying you!), and so on.

Put it another way, people respect the ideas put forward in science
because they have reason to believe that it's founded on solid
principles, principles which make it possible for disinterested parties
to verify the results. If it isn't, but they act on it as if it were,
then that's a recipe for disaster.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/ 

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================