Atheism and being Armenian

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

sure thing I'll give an account (soon) from one of my former professors on why the English Vowel Shift, though widely cited by English teachers and specialists, along with linguists... never happened :P

Well, we're on the same page I think, I guess by attitude I meant method of thought... See where language fails us, everything has to be neatly defined, which is why lots of specialists just use logic, the weird language thingy that uses terms like "union" and "intersection", mathematical symbols and whatnot in order to talk in a fashion everyone could agree with :S But I do find your reasons for choosing science over faith nice to read I think you'd agree with me though that you can't apply the scientific method with everything, i.e. some of the things I outlined before like: philosophy, aesthetics, language use. I think those things are driven by conventions and the breaking of them, leading to continual innovations that don't necessarily shed more light on why things are the way they are. They are subjects that have to do with a means of communication and expression. That said, they can interact with knowledge gained through science.

OOoooh it didn't happen? Even more interesting; Can't wait. I love having friends who are "experts" in such disparate fields.

Makes more sense as method of thought.
Yeah, scientist... we operationally define. Sorry! Besides it's something that I've come across a lot in my field, so I'm more or less familiar with how it's defined in the research.

Thanks! I hope it helps others understand me better.

Philosophy still relies on logic and reason for sure. That's why scientists get Doctorates of Philosophy, Ph.D.! I made that up, but it makes sense, doesn't it. Seriously though. I disagree on this one. Philosophy definitely requires critical thinking, logic, reason, and an evidence-based approach where possible.

Language, I'm not familiar with, but I believe one can study language scientifically as well. Like when you look at how a language developed, do you not search for features that support one explanation or another? It's model/theory testing in a similar was as we do with science.

Aesthetics would be a different story I suppose. Though there is research on what people find visually appealing! What they look at first in photos, what holds your attention, what's pleasant, etc. If you're only interested in one person's opinion about the aesthetics of something, then you just ask them and that's that, but if you wanted to know about a wider group or look for universally pleasing things or to understand why some things are more appealing than others, you start to need another approach at gathering information/data, i.e. science.

[Sip]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Philosophy still relies on logic and reason for sure. That's why scientists get Doctorates of Philosophy, Ph.D.! I made that up, but it makes sense, doesn't it.

Search for anything on wikipedia, keep clicking the first link you find in the article (not stuff in perenthesis or italicized), you'll get to philosophy. Pretty much everything ends up there

[Odysseus]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Search for anything on wikipedia, keep clicking the first link you find in the article (not stuff in perenthesis or italicized), you'll get to philosophy. Pretty much everything ends up there

wow, reminds me of the Where is hitler game i played back in highschool when my friends and i were light years ahead of the other kids in computer class. LOL. and wow you were right i found Philosophy in 5 pages, and i found Hitler in 3. So i win.

[Sip]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Actually what's funny is that they seem to recently have switched the order of "fact" and "reality" just to prevent you to get to philosophy and get stuck at Truth ... gotta love Wiki games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

[Eddo211]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Life in our universe is not a science project.....the more you learn the more you find you know nothing.

What do Atheist believe in. Nothing? Chance?.....just curious.

[jgk3]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

OOoooh it didn't happen? Even more interesting; Can't wait. I love having friends who are "experts" in such disparate fields.

Enjoy if you can, I got carried away in my explanation!

Basically, what the Great English Vowel Shift refers to is a process by which throughout the centuries, the individual vowel sounds i (as in elite), e (as in hey), a (as in the Armenian name Ara), and a few others, supposedly percolated to the new positions of articulation we have today.

Before continuing, we have to refer to a distinction between the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and English orthography. When we write a vowel using square brackets, such as [i], we'll refer to its IPA sound. When we write a vowel using quotation marks such as "i", we'll refer to the English letter. Below is a list of which sounds the IPA vowels represent:

[i]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nded_vowel.ogg
[e]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nded_vowel.ogg
[a]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nded_vowel.ogg
[aj]: [a] sound + [j] (the glide sound of "y" found in English: "you")
[ej]: [e] sound + [j] (the glide sound of "y" found in English: "you")

For more information on Vowels and IPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_front_unrounded_vowel

So then if "i" is not the same sound as [i], which IPA vowel do you think describes the vowel sound in the English word "time"?

And if "e" is not the same sound as [e], which IPA vowel do you think describes the vowel sound in the English word "see"?

Well, at some point or another in the history of our English dialect, , the "i" of certain words assumed an [aj] sound (like in bye) as reflected in the modern English pronunciation of "time".
The "e" went to an [i] sound (like in elite) as reflected in the modern English pronunciation of "see".
The "a" went to an [ej] sound (like in hey as reflected in the modern English pronunciation of "name".

In order to explain the mechanism by which this happened, the Great English Vowel Shift theory proposes that it was a chain effect, that all this behavior of vowels changing their place of articulation were somehow linked to one another, caused by one of the vowels changing the position of its articulation in such a way as to make the other vowels unhappy about their respective positions in the English vowel system, and inciting their intelligent little vowel brains to want to regain order by finding a new place of articulation (i.e., occupying the position of another vowel sound other than the one they formerly occupied). It was either caused by a "pull chain" or a "push chain":

pull chain: "i" runs away from its position and goes to occupy a new sound: [aj], as heard in the word "time". "e" feels bad about the empty space "i" left behind, and no longer feels happy with the balance of things, so decides to pack up his bags and move to "i"'s position, and now occupies the sound [i] as heard in the word "see". "e" is happy now, but he left an empty space behind where he used to live. So now, the vowel "a" is unhappy and wants to fill in the cavity left behind by "e", so he leaves his position and goes to occupy the sound [e], as heard in the word "name". And a bunch of other wacky stuff happens with many exceptions according to this theory.

push chain: Rather than vowel "i" initiating the domino effect of uneasiness felt by vowels who apparently have enough of a brain and a worrisome heart to notice empty spaces left behind when their buddies decide to travel to new positions, in the push chain, we have a more pushy story, where "a", at the bottom of the chain, gets fed up of his position and decides to go invade "e", even though "e" is happily living in its position. So now, the vowel "a" is sounding like [e], such as in the word "name". "e" is having an identity crisis and wants to run away from "a", but seeing he has no free space to go to, he decides to invade the territory of "i", and starts sounding like [i], such as in the word "see". "i" is appalled by the situation too, but cleverly, he identifies a spot not taken by any other of his intelligent but pushy vowel kin: the location represented by the sound [aj], and starts to sound like that, as in words like "time".

My teacher dispelled this huge debate that's been going on for quite some time about whether the Great English Vowel Shift is due to a pull chain, or a push chain, postulating instead that there was no chain, nor any shifting of any of the vowels. He pointed out that in a phonetic analysis conducted on dutch vowels, the register for where their [i] vowel is articulated is very close to where English [e] is articulated, despite the apparent disparity between them regarding in the position of the mouth where they are pronounced according to the IPA. Likewise, the register for where their [e] vowel is articulated is very close to where English [a] is articulated.... What this means is that there is no such thing as an empirically definable [i], or [e], or [a], or whatever vowel sound, because the a speaker they are all just relative positions of articulation according to how high your tongue is positioned in your mouth when when they are spoken. So if an English [e] sound is very close to a dutch [i], it doesn't mean that English "e" ever had to move to the position of English "i" in order to sound that way, it just intrinsically sounds like that, but came to be associated with, to put it in non-technical, simplified terms, a sound represented by the letter "e". And if an English [a] sound is very close to a dutch [e] sound, it doesn't mean English "a" ever had to move to the position of English "e" in order to sound that way, it just intrinsically sounds like that, but came to be associated with a sound represented by the letter "a".

Sorry, I had fun writing this because it's not easy to explain the English vowel shift without teaching something about linguistics and phonetics!

Thanks! I hope it helps others understand me better.

Yeah, maybe they'll realize your not some kind of science monster from mars but a human being who actually found value in science through your own life experience

Philosophy still relies on logic and reason for sure. That's why scientists get Doctorates of Philosophy, Ph.D.! I made that up, but it makes sense, doesn't it. Seriously though. I disagree on this one. Philosophy definitely requires critical thinking, logic, reason, and an evidence-based approach where possible.

Of course it does, but how do you apply the scientific method on philosophy, if philosophies do not intrinsically hold any properties that are observable in nature? And the scientific method is philosophically driven: it is a system whereby one makes a hypothesis about why something works the way it does, then experiments with their hypothesis using measures that can be subjected to peer review... It is a means to knowledge arrived at in a particular way, as defined by its philosophy. An alternative, non-mainstream philosophy of science (I use the term science as one not monopolized by the tradition associated with the scientific method, but as any system that seeks to gain knowledge about the world) could have a different framework, which might for example go easy on the peer-review part in matters that have to do with mystical beliefs taken for granted, or it could leave out things like Ockham's razor and be satisfied with complicated, even esoteric ways of explaining phenomenon.

We take our logical thinking for granted as a reliable means to apply things like the scientific method, however, logic is a language that seeks to find order and consistency within a given framework or system, and logic can apply perfectly well in following the rules or tenets of some alternate approach to science, which leads to what is often termed a "pseudo-science" (because it doesn't adhere to the principles outlined in the scientific method). It is not logic that keeps our observation down to earth and real, it is rather our choice to select a scientific approach that exclusively tolerates what is observable and measurable and can be subjected to peer review. I don't think we can isolate human logical thinking itself as the culprit for why we engage in the scientific method, there are people who follow their own sense of whats right and logical according to their observations, but which they don't know how to define and share with scientists, yet to accuse them of not following logic, merely because they can't subject their knowledge to peer-review for x reason, seems to me illogical :P Again, I think some people find the scientific method, applied indiscriminately to any domain wherever its possible to, more congenial to their own personal interest than what others might appreciate to bother with doing.

Language, I'm not familiar with, but I believe one can study language scientifically as well. Like when you look at how a language developed, do you not search for features that support one explanation or another? It's model/theory testing in a similar was as we do with science.

Well, you can study language, particularly human language, as a science. That is what linguistics is. But the use/performance of language, such as in communication, or poetry, is not a science but a product of human innovation and application. Science seeks to explain phenomena through identifying regular patterns involved in how things work, and outlining the mechanism by which they interact to produce something, in the case of language, how we make sentences, recognize context, how languages change, how they're acquired, etc... It's similar to how making bouquets of flowers is not considered a science, but rather an art or occupation, even though there are principles of plant biology and psychology dealing with pleasing forms and scents which may be drawn upon to explain what a given bouquet is and why it may be pleasing.

Aesthetics would be a different story I suppose. Though there is research on what people find visually appealing! What they look at first in photos, what holds your attention, what's pleasant, etc. If you're only interested in one person's opinion about the aesthetics of something, then you just ask them and that's that, but if you wanted to know about a wider group or look for universally pleasing things or to understand why some things are more appealing than others, you start to need another approach at gathering information/data, i.e. science.

I agree, there is such a science.

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Life in our universe is not a science project.....the more you learn the more you find you know nothing.

What do Atheist believe in. Nothing? Chance?.....just curious.

Life in our universe is not a science project? I'm not sure what this even means. That we should not try to understand the universe in which we live? As if this understanding has no value at all for the survival of the human race...?

Yes, the more you learn, the more you realize there is much yet to learn. But only a fool gives up on learning anything at all simply because they cannot learn everything.

Eddo jan, I would love to answer your question about what I believe, but I'm now asking for the second time that you kindly clarify it. Do we believe in anything is entirely too broad and the obvious answer to that question is YES (who believes in nothing, anyway?). What do I believe in regards to what???


-----

Note to Jeff: Thank you! I regrettably have way too much work to do right now (tight deadline), so I'll need to return to your lengthy post to read and respond later today. Just wanted to say, I'm not ignoring it; I'll return to it soon!

[jgk3]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

No prob, best of luck I also have a bit of a deadline to worry about for work, my god I spent so much time procrastinating :P

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Enjoy if you can, I got carried away in my explanation!

Basically, what the Great English Vowel Shift refers to is a process by which throughout the centuries, the individual vowel sounds i (as in elite), e (as in hey), a (as in the Armenian name Ara), and a few others, supposedly percolated to the new positions of articulation we have today.

Before continuing, we have to refer to a distinction between the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and English orthography. When we write a vowel using square brackets, such as [i], we'll refer to its IPA sound. When we write a vowel using quotation marks such as "i", we'll refer to the English letter. Below is a list of which sounds the IPA vowels represent:

[i]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nded_vowel.ogg
[e]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nded_vowel.ogg
[a]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nded_vowel.ogg
[aj]: [a] sound + [j] (the glide sound of "y" found in English: "you")
[ej]: [e] sound + [j] (the glide sound of "y" found in English: "you")

For more information on Vowels and IPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_front_unrounded_vowel

So then if "i" is not the same sound as [i], which IPA vowel do you think describes the vowel sound in the English word "time"?

And if "e" is not the same sound as [e], which IPA vowel do you think describes the vowel sound in the English word "see"?

Well, at some point or another in the history of our English dialect, , the "i" of certain words assumed an [aj] sound (like in bye) as reflected in the modern English pronunciation of "time".
The "e" went to an [i] sound (like in elite) as reflected in the modern English pronunciation of "see".
The "a" went to an [ej] sound (like in hey as reflected in the modern English pronunciation of "name".

In order to explain the mechanism by which this happened, the Great English Vowel Shift theory proposes that it was a chain effect, that all this behavior of vowels changing their place of articulation were somehow linked to one another, caused by one of the vowels changing the position of its articulation in such a way as to make the other vowels unhappy about their respective positions in the English vowel system, and inciting their intelligent little vowel brains to want to regain order by finding a new place of articulation (i.e., occupying the position of another vowel sound other than the one they formerly occupied). It was either caused by a "pull chain" or a "push chain":

pull chain: "i" runs away from its position and goes to occupy a new sound: [aj], as heard in the word "time". "e" feels bad about the empty space "i" left behind, and no longer feels happy with the balance of things, so decides to pack up his bags and move to "i"'s position, and now occupies the sound [i] as heard in the word "see". "e" is happy now, but he left an empty space behind where he used to live. So now, the vowel "a" is unhappy and wants to fill in the cavity left behind by "e", so he leaves his position and goes to occupy the sound [e], as heard in the word "name". And a bunch of other wacky stuff happens with many exceptions according to this theory.

push chain: Rather than vowel "i" initiating the domino effect of uneasiness felt by vowels who apparently have enough of a brain and a worrisome heart to notice empty spaces left behind when their buddies decide to travel to new positions, in the push chain, we have a more pushy story, where "a", at the bottom of the chain, gets fed up of his position and decides to go invade "e", even though "e" is happily living in its position. So now, the vowel "a" is sounding like [e], such as in the word "name". "e" is having an identity crisis and wants to run away from "a", but seeing he has no free space to go to, he decides to invade the territory of "i", and starts sounding like [i], such as in the word "see". "i" is appalled by the situation too, but cleverly, he identifies a spot not taken by any other of his intelligent but pushy vowel kin: the location represented by the sound [aj], and starts to sound like that, as in words like "time".

My teacher dispelled this huge debate that's been going on for quite some time about whether the Great English Vowel Shift is due to a pull chain, or a push chain, postulating instead that there was no chain, nor any shifting of any of the vowels. He pointed out that in a phonetic analysis conducted on dutch vowels, the register for where their [i] vowel is articulated is very close to where English [e] is articulated, despite the apparent disparity between them regarding in the position of the mouth where they are pronounced according to the IPA. Likewise, the register for where their [e] vowel is articulated is very close to where English [a] is articulated.... What this means is that there is no such thing as an empirically definable [i], or [e], or [a], or whatever vowel sound, because the a speaker they are all just relative positions of articulation according to how high your tongue is positioned in your mouth when when they are spoken. So if an English [e] sound is very close to a dutch [i], it doesn't mean that English "e" ever had to move to the position of English "i" in order to sound that way, it just intrinsically sounds like that, but came to be associated with, to put it in non-technical, simplified terms, a sound represented by the letter "e". And if an English [a] sound is very close to a dutch [e] sound, it doesn't mean English "a" ever had to move to the position of English "e" in order to sound that way, it just intrinsically sounds like that, but came to be associated with a sound represented by the letter "a".

Sorry, I had fun writing this because it's not easy to explain the English vowel shift without teaching something about linguistics and phonetics!



Yeah, maybe they'll realize your not some kind of science monster from mars but a human being who actually found value in science through your own life experience



Of course it does, but how do you apply the scientific method on philosophy, if philosophies do not intrinsically hold any properties that are observable in nature? And the scientific method is philosophically driven: it is a system whereby one makes a hypothesis about why something works the way it does, then experiments with their hypothesis using measures that can be subjected to peer review... It is a means to knowledge arrived at in a particular way, as defined by its philosophy. An alternative, non-mainstream philosophy of science (I use the term science as one not monopolized by the tradition associated with the scientific method, but as any system that seeks to gain knowledge about the world) could have a different framework, which might for example go easy on the peer-review part in matters that have to do with mystical beliefs taken for granted, or it could leave out things like Ockham's razor and be satisfied with complicated, even esoteric ways of explaining phenomenon.

We take our logical thinking for granted as a reliable means to apply things like the scientific method, however, logic is a language that seeks to find order and consistency within a given framework or system, and logic can apply perfectly well in following the rules or tenets of some alternate approach to science, which leads to what is often termed a "pseudo-science" (because it doesn't adhere to the principles outlined in the scientific method). It is not logic that keeps our observation down to earth and real, it is rather our choice to select a scientific approach that exclusively tolerates what is observable and measurable and can be subjected to peer review. I don't think we can isolate human logical thinking itself as the culprit for why we engage in the scientific method, there are people who follow their own sense of whats right and logical according to their observations, but which they don't know how to define and share with scientists, yet to accuse them of not following logic, merely because they can't subject their knowledge to peer-review for x reason, seems to me illogical :P Again, I think some people find the scientific method, applied indiscriminately to any domain wherever its possible to, more congenial to their own personal interest than what others might appreciate to bother with doing.



Well, you can study language, particularly human language, as a science. That is what linguistics is. But the use/performance of language, such as in communication, or poetry, is not a science but a product of human innovation and application. Science seeks to explain phenomena through identifying regular patterns involved in how things work, and outlining the mechanism by which they interact to produce something, in the case of language, how we make sentences, recognize context, how languages change, how they're acquired, etc... It's similar to how making bouquets of flowers is not considered a science, but rather an art or occupation, even though there are principles of plant biology and psychology dealing with pleasing forms and scents which may be drawn upon to explain what a given bouquet is and why it may be pleasing.

I agree, there is such a science.

Sheesh Jeff! That's fascinating about the shift. I only recently heard about this shift, but that it's not clear what caused it. Thanks so much for explaining it so thoroughly. I'm going to chew on the information a bit.

Science monster! Oogabooga! I'm really quite intimidating and frightening... If I make it out to your neck of the woods (maybe picking up Anna on the way ), you'll have to see for yourself. If you're not too scared, that is. You never know, I may be executing a diabolical plan to sell you to a pharmaceutical company as a human guinea pig.

As for the other science stuff. I don't know... You're trying to point out the limitations in theory, but honestly, when I say I live by that standard, clearly I'm not saying I conduct an experiment for everything. What I mean is taking an evidence-based approach. Before I make up my mind about something or make a decision, etc. I want to be informed, and I seek evidence to inform the opinion, decision, etc. That's it. You can always seek evidence in this way.

There are sciences where they're not conducting experiments. They're making predictions (based on what is already established by prior research or you have to make a really strong case for it based on logic if it's not been addressed in the literature or it's not supported by it) and then seeking evidence, gathering observations, etc. and examining whether it negates their hypothesis. If the evidence is not inconsistent with the null hypothesis (we always seek to disprove our hypotheses) and it is consistent with the research hypothesis, then we confirm it.

In the case of things that are not observable, then they're really thought experiments, but you still apply logic. Given what we know about the world, is it plausible that this would be like this....
Perhaps it would be more helpful to discuss it non-abstractly? Do you have something in mind that you think cannot be benefited from logic or an evidence-based approach?

-------------------------------------


Eek... And Jeff?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Happy birthday!!! :-)




.

[Sip]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

What do Atheist believe in. Nothing? Chance?.....just curious.

That's a good question ... I wonder if we have any atheists around here. Doesn't seem like any actual atheists have contributed to this thread (or maybe I missed something).