3 ms·

"Every time I fire a linguist, the speech recognition system gets more accurate!" (https://www.intefrankly.com/articles/Every-time-I-fire-a-linguist-the-speech

"Every time I fire a linguist, the speech recognition system gets more accurate!" (https://www.intefrankly.com/articles/Every-time-I-fire-a-linguist-the-speech-recognition-system-gets-more-accurate/0992487dd573 https://www.intefrankly.com/articles/Every-time-I-fire-a-lin...) The fact is, linguists failed. They might have beautiful theories, but the theories have no utilitarian value (unlike the laws of gravity).

thomasahle 4y ago
> the theories have no utilitarian value If you've ever used a compiler, you've benefitted from "linguist theories" like regular or context free grammars.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  People who dismiss an entire field of science as useless invariably know little to nothing about the field, I've found. Whenever I feel like doing that I try to go read some on the field instead. Usually I find applications I didn't know about.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    tell us about all these applications we didn't know about! You know, the ones that'll translate 40+ human languages into (vaguely) readable English or vice versa. Give us the URL.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      Do you actually think Linguistics is only about language translation?
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        > Do you actually think... No, I don't, but a working translation is proof that the theory does understand human language as it's actually used. Or in this case, that it doesn't.
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        And is it your view that not having the field's equivalent of a theory of everything makes that field useless and without applications?
        AlbertCory 4y ago
        Nice strawman. My view is: if you have a theory, it should be falsifiable. If your "theory" isn't, then it's a religion.
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        Fascinating. Is linguistics a religion, in your view?
        AlbertCory 4y ago
        Maybe try saying something original, instead of putting words in my mouth.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Yes, they work on formal languages. Not so much on human ones.

thomasahle 4y ago

> the theories have no utilitarian value If you've ever used a compiler, you've benefitted from "linguist theories" like regular or context free grammars.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
People who dismiss an entire field of science as useless invariably know little to nothing about the field, I've found. Whenever I feel like doing that I try to go read some on the field instead. Usually I find applications I didn't know about.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  tell us about all these applications we didn't know about! You know, the ones that'll translate 40+ human languages into (vaguely) readable English or vice versa. Give us the URL.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    Do you actually think Linguistics is only about language translation?
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      > Do you actually think... No, I don't, but a working translation is proof that the theory does understand human language as it's actually used. Or in this case, that it doesn't.
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        And is it your view that not having the field's equivalent of a theory of everything makes that field useless and without applications?
        AlbertCory 4y ago
        Nice strawman. My view is: if you have a theory, it should be falsifiable. If your "theory" isn't, then it's a religion.
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        Fascinating. Is linguistics a religion, in your view?
        AlbertCory 4y ago
        Maybe try saying something original, instead of putting words in my mouth.
AlbertCory 4y ago
Yes, they work on formal languages. Not so much on human ones.