3 ms·

You are proving by extrapolation. That's no good when we want to use it to gauge whether animals have language. That line of argument will work only for humans.

by srean 8y ago

You are proving by extrapolation. That's no good when we want to use it to gauge whether animals have language. That line of argument will work only for humans. I used Sentinelese just as an example to bring out the fact that we would jump to the conclusion that they have a language just because they are human. Prove to me that Sentinelese have language without extrapolating. That is prove it without using "all humans have language. Sentinelese are human. Therefore Sentinelese have language". Nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but its limited in scope. I am asking for specification of a scientific experiment that can be used to check with acceptable false positives and false negatives whether someone/something has a language that can work beyond the human species. From your tone of authority it should be a piece of cake for you.

foldr 8y ago
There's no "extrapolation" involved -- just empirical observation of humans and gorillas. I mean, do you think there's a serious possibility that gorillas have language and we just haven't noticed? That seems about as plausible as the idea that penguins can secretly fly, or that tigers don't actually have fur. You don't need a fancy experiment to figure this stuff out. The people doing the fancy experiments were trying to find support for an inherently implausible hypothesis (that gorillas have a dormant linguistic capacity), and failed to find any such evidence. Case closed. Thanks to their pointless research program, we are now even more* sure that gorillas don't have language than we were before. >I used Sentinelese just as an example to bring out the fact that we would jump to the conclusion that they have a language just because they are human Well, yes, and we would jump to the conclusion that a pig couldn't fly just because it's a pig. So there's no sense in which that kind of argument is limited to humans. We know enough about humans to know that any human society will have a language, and we know enough about gorillas to know that they don't have language.
- srean 8y ago
  You are persistently avoiding the question by deflecting focus to what I think. What I think is irrelevant. This is the question I asked: I am asking for specification of a scientific experiment that can be used to check with acceptable false positives and false negatives whether someone/something has a language that can work beyond the human species. From your tone of authority it should be a piece of cake for you. > That seems about as plausible as the idea that penguins can secretly fly, or that tigers don't actually have fur. Then it would be an easy peasy to prove it. Please indulge me. > we know enough about gorillas to know that they don't have language Citation needed. I am not disputing that. What I am interested in is specification/description of a scientific experiment that is capable of showing "foo does not have a language"
  - foldr 8y ago
    You might as well ask for a specification of a scientific experiment proving that dogs can't perform operas. Humans have been observing gorillas for a long time and have seen no indication of a linguistic capacity. Perhaps a gorilla will surprise us and speak. And maybe a dog will surprise us by performing Nessun Dorma. It's not the business of science to rule out every mad fantasy someone might dream up.
    - srean 8y ago
      > You might as well ask for a specification of a scientific experiment proving that dogs can't perform operas. That shallow, low brow trolling. You seem to be incapable of providing an argument and have to resort to wild exaggerated analogies. Rather ironic given this a thread on whether Gorillas have or can acquire a language. If it was so cut and dry as dog performing operas, there would not have been so much human interest in this topic.
      - foldr 8y ago
        I believe it is as cut and dry. Not sure what leads you to think that it isnt. The overwhelming scientific consensus has always been that humans are the only known species with a linguistic capacity. Gorillas are among the less plausible of the potential counterexamples.

by srean 8y ago

foldr 8y ago

There's no "extrapolation" involved -- just empirical observation of humans and gorillas. I mean, do you think there's a serious possibility that gorillas have language and we just haven't noticed? That seems about as plausible as the idea that penguins can secretly fly, or that tigers don't actually have fur. You don't need a fancy experiment to figure this stuff out. The people doing the fancy experiments were trying to find support for an inherently implausible hypothesis (that gorillas have a dormant linguistic capacity), and failed to find any such evidence. Case closed. Thanks to their pointless research program, we are now even more* sure that gorillas don't have language than we were before. >I used Sentinelese just as an example to bring out the fact that we would jump to the conclusion that they have a language just because they are human Well, yes, and we would jump to the conclusion that a pig couldn't fly just because it's a pig. So there's no sense in which that kind of argument is limited to humans. We know enough about humans to know that any human society will have a language, and we know enough about gorillas to know that they don't have language.

srean 8y ago
You are persistently avoiding the question by deflecting focus to what I think. What I think is irrelevant. This is the question I asked: I am asking for specification of a scientific experiment that can be used to check with acceptable false positives and false negatives whether someone/something has a language that can work beyond the human species. From your tone of authority it should be a piece of cake for you. > That seems about as plausible as the idea that penguins can secretly fly, or that tigers don't actually have fur. Then it would be an easy peasy to prove it. Please indulge me. > we know enough about gorillas to know that they don't have language Citation needed. I am not disputing that. What I am interested in is specification/description of a scientific experiment that is capable of showing "foo does not have a language"
- foldr 8y ago
  You might as well ask for a specification of a scientific experiment proving that dogs can't perform operas. Humans have been observing gorillas for a long time and have seen no indication of a linguistic capacity. Perhaps a gorilla will surprise us and speak. And maybe a dog will surprise us by performing Nessun Dorma. It's not the business of science to rule out every mad fantasy someone might dream up.
  - srean 8y ago
    > You might as well ask for a specification of a scientific experiment proving that dogs can't perform operas. That shallow, low brow trolling. You seem to be incapable of providing an argument and have to resort to wild exaggerated analogies. Rather ironic given this a thread on whether Gorillas have or can acquire a language. If it was so cut and dry as dog performing operas, there would not have been so much human interest in this topic.
    - foldr 8y ago
      I believe it is as cut and dry. Not sure what leads you to think that it isnt. The overwhelming scientific consensus has always been that humans are the only known species with a linguistic capacity. Gorillas are among the less plausible of the potential counterexamples.