Definition of Consciousness: 2nd Poll

[Subsymbolic]

How exactly were confounding variables handled in that study?

What was the correlation between language delay and parental education and level of income?

What was the correlation to amount of siblings?

What was the correlation to nutrition?

Why do you think a mere correlation to tv viewing shows causation?

I tell you what, having made some generic complaints that were immediately falsified, how about you read the paper yourself and present your conclusions, rather than asking me to do the work for you

Remember, first you claimed:

I suspect you have some anecdotal evidence you think is scientific.

Then you falsely asserted that:

None conclusively say television viewing is a causative factor.

Now you are asking me to critique one paper for you. You still don't get it, not only are these just a small sample of papers that support a well known conclusion in both linguistics and education, they are far from the only approach to establishing this fact. Why don't you google Bohannon & Bonvillian, 1997 and have a go at critiquing that one...

If only your critical facilities were so alert when engaging with poor old Chomsky...

 

[Copernicus]

It is not unreasonable to question the conclusions of studies that prove a correlation between TV watching and language development milestones. It is quite natural for some children to manifest linguistic skills later than others, but it alarms parents when an objective measure shows retardation in this area. That is because we associate intelligence with language skills, even though people with impaired language can be just as intelligent as people who have normal command of language. Correlation is easy to prove, but the causal models we come up with to explain the correlation are much more difficult to prove.

I suspect that watching TV does have some positive effect on certain areas of language development, e.g. vocabulary development. OTOH, it may deprive individuals of opportunities to refine their skill at social interaction, and that can affect how well they manifest language skills when under pressure to demonstrate them to test takers. (Bill Labov showed this back in the 1970s, when developmental psychologists were proving that black children had retarded language development when compared with white children. It turned out that it was not a good idea to have white authority figures conducting those tests on black children.) Perhaps children who are slow at socialization prefer to spend more time watching TV and just perform more poorly when interacting with test takers. Of course, I should point out that I'm not really familiar enough with these TV studies to deny that they prove anything about actual vs manifested language development. Measuring language skills in children is just a very tricky thing, and I tend to be skeptical of such studies.

 

[untermensche]

I tell you what, having made some generic complaints that were immediately falsified, how about you read the paper yourself and present your conclusions, rather than asking me to do the work for you

Remember, first you claimed:



Then you falsely asserted that:

None conclusively say television viewing is a causative factor.

Now you are asking me to critique one paper for you. You still don't get it, not only are these just a small sample of papers that support a well known conclusion in both linguistics and education, they are far from the only approach to establishing this fact. Why don't you google Bohannon & Bonvillian, 1997 and have a go at critiquing that one...

If only your critical facilities were so alert when engaging with poor old Chomsky...

My claim was that a person could acquire a language just with exposure.

You haven't addressed that claim.

You made a claim about a correlation between television viewing and language delays, not a lack of a language ability.

Correlations say nothing about causation in case you have forgotten. All kinds of statistical correlations can be made that demonstrate nothing.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I tell you what, having made some generic complaints that were immediately falsified, how about you read the paper yourself and present your conclusions, rather than asking me to do the work for you

Remember, first you claimed:



Then you falsely asserted that:

None conclusively say television viewing is a causative factor.

Now you are asking me to critique one paper for you. You still don't get it, not only are these just a small sample of papers that support a well known conclusion in both linguistics and education, they are far from the only approach to establishing this fact. Why don't you google Bohannon & Bonvillian, 1997 and have a go at critiquing that one...

If only your critical facilities were so alert when engaging with poor old Chomsky...

My claim was that a person could acquire a language just with exposure.

You haven't addressed that claim.

You made a claim about a correlation between television viewing and language delays, not a lack of a language ability.

Correlations say nothing about causation in case you have forgotten. All kinds of statistical correlations can be made that demonstrate nothing.

Nah, I'm just revealing how wrong you are slowly. You clearly didn't google the paper I mentioned...

Mind you that's probably why you are moving the goalposts - as you dimly realise that you can't substantiate your assertion. Again.

 

[untermensche]

My claim was that a person could acquire a language just with exposure.

You haven't addressed that claim.

You made a claim about a correlation between television viewing and language delays, not a lack of a language ability.

Correlations say nothing about causation in case you have forgotten. All kinds of statistical correlations can be made that demonstrate nothing.

Nah, I'm just revealing how wrong you are slowly. You clearly didn't google the paper I mentioned...

Mind you that's probably why you are moving the goalposts - as you dimly realise that you can't substantiate your assertion. Again.

Key word.

Slowly.

Do you know what a confounding variable is? Do you know what a controlled experiment is?

Do you know that correlation studies are considered weak evidence?

 

[Hermit]

It's like asking for a link to show water is wet.

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-1725,00.html

I asked for evidence.

They had no answer.

Ignorant arseholes.

Stop harassing me.

The mods should intervene.

Because you're off your rockers.

 

[untermensche]

It's like asking for a link to show water is wet.

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-1725,00.html

I asked for evidence.

They had no answer.

Ignorant arseholes.

Stop harassing me.

The mods should intervene.

Because you're off your rockers.

You have not earned the right to behave like that.

You do not know any history. You do not know any context.

People are allowed to be ignorant and just express displeasure without ever being able to describe why they have it. Like a baby with a full diaper can express displeasure but can not articulate what it is that is bothering it.

Excuse me for wanting to raise the level of discourse above the level of a crying baby.

And believe me if you had to deal with a crying baby day in and day out you would tire of it too.

If your child never advanced beyond the level of a crying baby you would tire of it.

 

[beero1000]

All hail God-King Chomsky!

 

[Hermit]

I asked for evidence.

They had no answer.

Ignorant arseholes.

Stop harassing me.

The mods should intervene.

Because you're off your rockers.

You have not earned the right to behave like that.

You do not know any history. You do not know any context.

People are allowed to be ignorant and just express displeasure without ever being able to describe why they have it. Like a baby with a full diaper can express displeasure but can not articulate what it is that is bothering it.

Excuse me for wanting to raise the level of discourse above the level of a crying baby.

And believe me if you had to deal with a crying baby day in and day out you would tire of it too.

If your child never advanced beyond the level of a crying baby you would tire of it.

Beautiful reaction. Just beautiful.

 

[untermensche]

All hail God-King Chomsky!

The problem is your argument is air tight.

I mean it contains no content what-so-ever.

Very clever.

That way you can say something and nobody can say you don't know what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked for evidence.

They had no answer.

Ignorant arseholes.

Stop harassing me.

The mods should intervene.

Because you're off your rockers.

You have not earned the right to behave like that.

You do not know any history. You do not know any context.

People are allowed to be ignorant and just express displeasure without ever being able to describe why they have it. Like a baby with a full diaper can express displeasure but can not articulate what it is that is bothering it.

Excuse me for wanting to raise the level of discourse above the level of a crying baby.

And believe me if you had to deal with a crying baby day in and day out you would tire of it too.

If your child never advanced beyond the level of a crying baby you would tire of it.

Beautiful reaction. Just beautiful.

Sorry folks if I want to raise the level of discourse above this.

I am a very bad man.

 

[beero1000]

The problem is your argument is air tight.

I mean it contains no content what-so-ever.

Very clever.

That way you can say something and nobody can say you don't know what you're talking about.

Better than saying something and everybody saying you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[untermensche]

The problem is your argument is air tight.

I mean it contains no content what-so-ever.

Very clever.

That way you can say something and nobody can say you don't know what you're talking about.

Better than saying something and everybody saying you don't know what you're talking about.

That is true.

But you have never once demonstrated I do not know what I am talking about.

So if you are talking about it you are merely suffering some form of dementia.

But go ahead make your most salient and coherent argument of some aspect of Chomsky's work.

Do more than voice unexplained displeasure.

It is nothing but a waste without any explanation.

Why anyone would bother doing it evades me.

 

[beero1000]

The problem is your argument is air tight.

I mean it contains no content what-so-ever.

Very clever.

That way you can say something and nobody can say you don't know what you're talking about.

Better than saying something and everybody saying you don't know what you're talking about.

That is true.

But you have never once demonstrated I do not know what I am talking about.

So if you are talking about it you are merely suffering some form of dementia.

But go ahead make your most salient and coherent argument of some aspect of Chomsky's work.

Do more than voice unexplained displeasure.

It is nothing but a waste without any explanation.

Why anyone would bother doing it evades me.

It's been demonstrated dozens of times on multiple topics by multiple posters. That you remain unconvinced of your incompetencies is just another example of them. Why bother with someone who will just knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and declare victory?

 

[Hermit]

The problem is your argument is air tight.

I mean it contains no content what-so-ever.

Very clever.

That way you can say something and nobody can say you don't know what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked for evidence.

They had no answer.

Ignorant arseholes.

Stop harassing me.

The mods should intervene.

Because you're off your rockers.

You have not earned the right to behave like that.

You do not know any history. You do not know any context.

People are allowed to be ignorant and just express displeasure without ever being able to describe why they have it. Like a baby with a full diaper can express displeasure but can not articulate what it is that is bothering it.

Excuse me for wanting to raise the level of discourse above the level of a crying baby.

And believe me if you had to deal with a crying baby day in and day out you would tire of it too.

If your child never advanced beyond the level of a crying baby you would tire of it.

Beautiful reaction. Just beautiful.

Sorry folks if I want to raise the level of discourse above this.

I am a very bad man.

You are not at all a bad man.

Just an utter failure at rational discussion.

In prior centuries you could have been a first rate inquisitor.

They were convinced that they were absolutely rational too.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The problem is your argument is air tight.

I mean it contains no content what-so-ever.

Very clever.

That way you can say something and nobody can say you don't know what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked for evidence.

They had no answer.

Ignorant arseholes.

Stop harassing me.

The mods should intervene.

Because you're off your rockers.

You have not earned the right to behave like that.

You do not know any history. You do not know any context.

People are allowed to be ignorant and just express displeasure without ever being able to describe why they have it. Like a baby with a full diaper can express displeasure but can not articulate what it is that is bothering it.

Excuse me for wanting to raise the level of discourse above the level of a crying baby.

And believe me if you had to deal with a crying baby day in and day out you would tire of it too.

If your child never advanced beyond the level of a crying baby you would tire of it.

Beautiful reaction. Just beautiful.

Sorry folks if I want to raise the level of discourse above this.

I am a very bad man.

Karma, meet dogma.

 

[beero1000]

In prior centuries you could have been a first rate inquisitor.

They were convinced that they were absolutely rational too.

That had honestly never occurred to me and is terrifying.

 

[untermensche]

That is true.

But you have never once demonstrated I do not know what I am talking about.

So if you are talking about it you are merely suffering some form of dementia.

But go ahead make your most salient and coherent argument of some aspect of Chomsky's work.

Do more than voice unexplained displeasure.

It is nothing but a waste without any explanation.

Why anyone would bother doing it evades me.

It's been demonstrated dozens of times on multiple topics by multiple posters. That you remain unconvinced of your incompetencies is just another example of them. Why bother with someone who will just knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and declare victory?

Do you have one example from these "dozens" of times?

Just one.

Do you know the difference between a claim and evidence? Have you taken one course that involved what is called "evidence"?

You don't seem to ever think it is necessary.

 

[untermensche]

The problem is your argument is air tight.

I mean it contains no content what-so-ever.

Very clever.

That way you can say something and nobody can say you don't know what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

You have not earned the right to behave like that.

You do not know any history. You do not know any context.

People are allowed to be ignorant and just express displeasure without ever being able to describe why they have it. Like a baby with a full diaper can express displeasure but can not articulate what it is that is bothering it.

Excuse me for wanting to raise the level of discourse above the level of a crying baby.

And believe me if you had to deal with a crying baby day in and day out you would tire of it too.

If your child never advanced beyond the level of a crying baby you would tire of it.

Beautiful reaction. Just beautiful.

Sorry folks if I want to raise the level of discourse above this.

I am a very bad man.

You are not at all a bad man.

Just an utter failure at rational discussion.

In prior centuries you could have been a first rate inquisitor.

They were convinced that they were absolutely rational too.

I see you claims. Devoid of any evidence.

If anyone is being tortured with a lack of rational discourse it is me.

I can give you link after link of posts like the one you made

Full of fire and fury.

Completely devoid of content.

 

[Hermit]

I see you claims. Devoid of any evidence.

If anyone is being tortured with a lack of rational discourse it is me.

I can give you link after link of posts like the one you made

Full of fire and fury.

Completely devoid of content.

The irony

It's delicious.

 

[untermensche]

I see you claims. Devoid of any evidence.

If anyone is being tortured with a lack of rational discourse it is me.

I can give you link after link of posts like the one you made

Full of fire and fury.

Completely devoid of content.

The irony

It's delicious.

Look at this thread . If you claim I have not provided content you are just lying.

Just lying passes for argument for some.

Just express an idea I see differently and you will get some content.

You need to provide some yourself first.