5-1265msg1.txt

贝叶斯学习算法源码

Subject: lx as * science * ?

i accept the editor ' recent challenge for resume last year 's thread ( which i miss , before subscribe ) on whether linguistics be / should be consider a science - - by which i be assume everyone means newtonian * science * rather than the quantum / relativity science which have be current during this century . [ n1 ] . i will argue 1 ) that while much of our work be * scientific * , much of our work go beyond the traditional definition of * science * ; 2 ) that be categorize solely as * science * be to our long-term professional detriment ; 3 ) that we be uniquely position to aim higher . academic over the century have use various prestige word when desire to assert their rigor . * scientific * be such a word today , and have be a prestige word since the early 1800 's when it replace * philosophical * as the term academic use when indicate some ultimate in rigor and truth . and well before that , in seventh-century rome , boethius and other use * logical * as their prestige word . [ n2 ] i ' m confident this be not the sole reason for most linguist ' claim that linguistics be a * science * . but for those few for whom it be : say it 's * rigorous * be sufficient to describe that side of our work . perhap instead our discipline be look for professional prestige and advancement in academe , and align politically with * science * be see as the best strategic move . [ n3 ] is this a reason ? if so , perhap we can talk together about it out loud rather than it remain as a professional assumption . but there be other reason we may consider give up * science * as a label - - include our unique perversity in cultivate the process of work with mean . a physicist friend once tell me that if physics have to deal with the dimension of mean ( s ) as well as everything else it deal with , physics could no longer be a science . [ greg derry , personal communication ] . newtonian physics be long hold as the model of hard * science * , and all of its principle exclude ( d ) mean . but so do the principle of 20th - century physics . is any linguist ready to give up mean ( include the systemic mean of structure ) in order to be * scientific * ? is linguistics not at least as much art as science ? can anyone provide me a good reason for categorize linguistics as science in the context of these remark ? is n't there something more inclusive we can aim toward ? but where 's our model in the social / soft science ? actually , linguistics be the best potential candidate for such a new , meaning-full model of science . other discipline have be watch us for decade . after all , we train in our methodology for a very delicate balance act in consciousness between form and mean ( i . e . , when do historical work , we compare form even from other language , but we can't stop with that - - we must also be aware whether they have change semantic category , etc . ) . this be what some in other discipline would call a systems approach , which go beyond modern structuralism [ n4 ] . like the complementarity principle in physics , form and mean in linguistics be complementary ( not polar ) opposite , both necessary for the total system to work properly . ala , our own theory be another matter . because of the terminological shackle of a meaning-less * science * that some would place on our discipline , we continue to use the dead metaphor of that meaning-less * science * in our attempt at meaning-full theory build . [ n5 ] notice how we have historically treat those who urge us to move our theory to the level of our methodology - - to the level of system think : which describe a world of uncertainty and mutual interdependency rather than mono-certain anything ; or chaotic ' attractor ' pull event toward them into material manifestation [ n6 ] , instead of one thing directly cause another . whorf take one step , in transform einstein 's relativity principle from the more limit geometry focus to the larger focus of human language in general , which he call the linguistic relativity principle . [ n7 ] that physics have in this century be deal with deep linguistic question have unfortunately be lose on most linguist . and the deeper merger of language and philosophy have be ignore for universalist perspective in the latter half of this century [ n8 ] . and linguistics department be close as the rest of academe ruthlessly render its own self-serve judgement : linguistics be become irrelevant , a " pseudo-science " , in the late 20th - century . please understand : i be in no way against the * scientific * mode of linguistics - - it be uniquely appropriate to study form . it be not , however , appropriate to study mean , for obvious reason . the answer be not to let the part overwhelm the whole such that our entire discipline become * scientific * , but to accept the challenge and develop theory and principle of a meaning-full science that other discipline will so admire that in the 21st century they will start claim to be * linguistic * as a way of claim ultimate rigor in their search for truth . * * * * notes : [ n1 ] i assume this because of the way all the social science treat whorf , who be attempt to tell them that the very definition of * science * / science be change underneath their certainty . if it be otherwise , we would n't need this discussion . [ n2 ] dineen on boethius : " logic become the prestige study of the day , the medieval 's most precise and respect intellectual tool . it hold the same position in the intellectual world then that science hold now : serious study today must be 's cientific ' - - then it have to be ' logical ' " . [ n3 ] however , as one christian de quincy write recently , " [ m ] ost scientist do not recognize the limit of science , nor do they want to . there be a power give to the society that support science . if one be to take the power and possession [ of science ] away from the corporation and politician , what would be the stand of science in society ? " [ n4 ] . . . and what some consciousness anthropologist would call a 's hamanic stance ' , balance with a foot in both world . eastern philosopher would probably talk about the interpenetration of yin and yang within the tao , as david bohm find out in his dialogue with j . krishnamurtus . [ n5 ] include such pre - relativity / quantum * scientific * vocabulary as ' cause ' and 'd etermine ' ( especially when link , as in monocausal determinism ! ) . we even try to project these dead * metaphor onto people use system think ( e . g . , sapir , whorf , pike , lamb ) . [ n6 ] per current chao theory in mathematics , for those who like to use mathematics in their linguistics theory . [ n7 ] einstein also have the larger language issue in mind , which he talk about in a 1941 radio speech ( " what be it that bring about such an ultimate connection between language and think ? . . . the mental development of the individual and his way of form concept depend to a high degree upon language . this make us realize to what extent the same language means the same mentality . " ) . [ n8 ] there be so much more that need to be do in interest area such as how reason and logic and philosophy grow out of the grammar of language . most be not aware , for instance , that the word ' karma ' - - long before it be a term of eastern philosophy denote the process of what go around come around with emphasis on the ' come around ' experiential phenomenon - - be a term within the system of sanskrit linguistics mean 'd irect object of verb ' [ jame ryan , sanskrit & philosophy scholar , personal communication then presentation at society for the anthropology of consciousness , 1992 ] . what may a well-articulate philosophy of animacy from native american language look like ? - - moonhawk ( % - > ) < " the fool on the hill see the sun go down and > < the eye in his head see the world spin round " > < - - john lennon >