A continuation of the endless I/O talk (General discussion) Language Learning Forum

A continuation of the endless I/O talk
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : General discussion

126 messages over 16 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 ... 15 16 Next >>

Cainntear
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Scotland
linguafrankly.blogsp
Joined 6010 days ago
4399 posts - 7687 votes

Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh

Message 73 of 126

29 November 2008 at 8:21am | IP Logged

slucido wrote:

Si les prémisses sont fausses, les conclusions sont fausses. Tu n'as pas besoin de cours de mathématiques ou de logique.

À propos, ta méthode de lire et d'écouter est très intéressante.

Quelle tipe!

If the premises are false, it does not make the conclusion false.

Let me demonstrate.

If Mars is green, then most forks have 4 prongs.
Mars is green.
Therefore most forks have 4 prongs.

My premises are wrong, but my conclusion is correct.
1 person has voted this message useful

Leopejo
Bilingual Triglot
Senior Member
Italy
Joined 6108 days ago
675 posts - 724 votes

Speaks: Italian*, Finnish*, English
Studies: French, Russian

Message 74 of 126

29 November 2008 at 8:21am | IP Logged

slucido wrote:

Si les prémisses sont fausses, les conclusions sont fausses. Tu n'as pas besoin de cours de mathématiques ou de logique.

I guess she is right after all...
1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6674 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

Message 76 of 126

29 November 2008 at 9:38am | IP Logged

Cainntear wrote:

My premises are wrong, but my conclusion is correct.

I am very happy you agree your premises are wrong :O)

1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6674 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

Message 77 of 126

29 November 2008 at 9:40am | IP Logged

Leopejo wrote:

slucido wrote:

Si les prémisses sont fausses, les conclusions sont fausses. Tu n'as pas besoin de cours de mathématiques ou de logique.

I guess she is right after all...

Yes, in a strict logical sense you can have wrong premises and a right conclusion.
That's the reason we need science.

1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6674 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

Message 78 of 126

29 November 2008 at 9:42am | IP Logged

namida wrote:

Slucido,
Ignorance is bliss. You live in a fool's paradise. And it makes your logic entertaining, to some degree. To a lesser degree.

Robi to zadaje ból? :O)))

Edited by slucido on 29 November 2008 at 9:43am
1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6674 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

Message 80 of 126

29 November 2008 at 10:27am | IP Logged

Cainntear wrote:

slucido wrote:

Please, it's not "importants" is "importance". :O)

This is a "slip", and does not demonstrate any underlying flaw in my understanding of the language. As you can see, it is not a consistent error - I spelt it right the first time.

So, when I make an error I am a bastard and when you make an error it's only a tiny slip.. .:O)))

Cainntear wrote:

De todo no.
My point is that you are trying to make a life philosophy and a grand unifying theory out of what's nothing more than an experimental framework.

I am trying to solve my problems and my client problems. I have more than enough. I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Cainntear wrote:

slucido wrote:

Very interesting, but it's very important to measure subjetive data as well. You need data about subjetive client feelings. This very important if you want to earn money.

The you are not a behaviourist.
The whole point of behaviourism is that it rejects subjective evidence as scientifically unreliable. Thoughts are unobservable, hence unmeasurable, so irrelevant to the experimenter.

Please is "then" and not "the"....:O)

You can read this article: Some myths about behaviorism that are undone in B.F. Skinner's "the design of cultures"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4032/is_200110/ai_n8 958549/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

It is sometimes said that, "Behaviorists think that we humans don't think!" That is wrong. And it usually reflects the speaker's failure to have studied behaviorism. In this paper Skinner wrote, "Men have found better ways, not only to dye a cloth or build a bridge, but to govern, teach, and employ. The conditions under which all such practices originate range from sheer accident to the extremely complex behaviors called thinking."

Cainntear wrote:

Behaviourism rejects the idea of hypothesising unmeasurable processes as unscientific.
The notion of internal thought processes as analogous to behaviours is a hypothetical construct, and has no place in behaviourism.

slucido wrote:

Thank you. I like to be a statistical deviation of the norm. I like to be special. It's very reinforcing for me...:O)))

This is starting to become like a religious debate. The term "reinforcing" has become a catch-all for "good". Being different "reinforces"... but what does it reinforce.

The quoted behavior.

Cainntear wrote:

It cannot reinforce the correct behaviour, because your behaviour is statistically verifiably incorrect!!

It's easy. Reinforce the correct behavior (positive reinforcement) and ignore the wrong behavior ( extinction)

Cainntear wrote:

slucido wrote:

Thank you, but your intention isn't helping me. You act like you do, because it's very reinforcing FOR YOU and it's not in a altruistic sense, but in a egotistical one :-)

Behaviourism says that my intention is irrelevant, only the outcomes in the form of my exhibited behaviours. Particularly given that my intention is unmeasurable by you or anyone else.
As an aside, why would it do my ego any good for me to speak better English than a non-native? There's nothing new there.

Why are you writing here against me? Why do you maintain in this behavior?

Cainntear wrote:

So in summary, no-one can argue with you because:
* You claim to ascribe to behaviourism, but you've really just picked the bits you like and extended them absurdly.

I ascribe to SCIENCE and not only behaviorism.

Cainntear wrote:

* In your framework there is no "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong"; there is only "reinforcing" and "non-reinforcing" and these mean whatever you want..

It's your responsibility to define what's good, bad, right and wrong. Then you decide to reinforce the right behavior and the extinction for the wrong behavior.
The framework is very easy and powerful.

Cainntear wrote:

* If anyone disagrees with you, it is because they do not understand you, and this isn't because you refuse to use meaningful terminology, oh no no, dearie me no.

It's easy. What I am telling boils down to find out OUR FAVORITE method and KEEP practicing it.

Cainntear wrote:

* Your personally-invented framework has never been experimentally measured, which means that no-one can have statistical evidence against it, and you reject all criticism that has no statistical evidence, even though your standpoint is similarly without statistical evidence.

My framework is easy:

Find out OUR FAVORITE method and KEEP practicing it.

Edited by slucido on 29 November 2008 at 10:31am

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 126 messages over 16 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.3281 seconds.