The etyomology of extimony comes through testimony. You can see the derivation with the affix ex- meaning "out of" with a minor shortening of the word.

So if you're claiming that testimony has "etymology" to back it up but somehow extimony doesn't (implicit in the structure of your statement), it means that you don't know much about etymology, which is nothing more than the study of where words come from. Etymology is descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. It doesn't tell us what derivations are or are not allowed, nor does it tell us what is and is not proper language usage.

Care to present a counter-argument? Or is this evidence and analysis sufficient for you to concede that your point was clearly off base and pointless?

That's fine with me. You are free to post however you want.

This is the second time that you've tried to deny the existence of words, or at least relegate them into a category of invalid words ("phony" and "fake").

Also, the word "troll" pre-existed the internet. Your statement seems to indicate that you aren't aware of this fact.

Smuggling in the word empirical does not make it any more scientific. Empiricism is vacant without the scientific method.

Don't get to excited. Fiction can be well done as well.

It's one thing for the quotes to not be "filed down", but another to pretend it's a term of art of something. Letting these "rough edges", as you call them, bleed into the paper itself gives the reader the notion they are reading an opinion piece or something.

This is a phony etymology as in, hey, I just made up a new word and pulled an "etymology" out of thin air. Like I said, extimony is simply a collection of syllables that sound okay to some people on the Internet.

If you want to see an actual etymology see ... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/testimony

The problem is not that I don't understand etymology. The problem is that you believe goofy stuff on the Internet.

I don't consider "extimony" to be a term of art, and I'm not sure where you'd get that idea from. Anyway, if you think the article is too sympathetic to the views of its subjects that might be fair enough: we are (mostly) sympathetic to their views.

As far as empiricism, science, and qualitative methods: All topics I enjoy but I don't have time at the moment to write some thorough defense of qualitative research methods. I'm also not actually an expert, by any stretch of the imagination. There's tons of books out there if you want to read arguments from people who use those methods professionally. Or, if you want to present an argument to support the idea that only quantitative methods can be falsifiable (or otherwise scientific) I'd read it with interest.

Words have both syntax and semantics. We are talking about semantics. The semantic meaning you were using is an Internet thing.

Opinion is not what counts in the scientific method. If that were all there was to the scientific method then conclusions in novels could be called verified if two people had the same opinion about what the book was saying. In your case, if someone disagrees, with the vague "goals" what are you going to resort to - an argument from authority or an argument by mob agreement?

The fact that it's hard is not germane. Also, as I said, I agree qualitative observations can be useful, but they are certainly not scientific.

Nor do I, it is some kind of slang and seems unsightly in a research paper.

Having a bias is normal and natural, but letting it bleed into a research paper is unscientific. If it seems like I stress science a lot it's because I believe very strongly in the integrity of the scientific method.

The argument is that conclusions drawn from the qualitative method as used in the social sciences injects personal opinion. This by definition leads to a subjective component. The bedrock of science is it's objectivity.

What are words other than arbitrary collections of syllables to which we ascribe meaning? You seem to be conflating "old" with "better." This is clearly a false rendering of language.

Furthermore, you have not actually demonstrated a failure of the etymology I've presented. It is literally where the word came from, which is its etymology. The use of an affix is wholly appropriate with how English language is used, understood through the use of affixes that carry the same meaning in other contexts. Language is not fixed in time and constantly evolves.

But regardless of whatever you may think about this situation, it's clear that you're not interested in engaging in rational or intelligent discussion. You are upset at the usage of this word because you somehow feel it demeans religion or something like that. And you're absolutely free to be upset by that.

Your error is to take that disgust and proffer it up with pseudo-intellectual bantering as if that's a meaningful discussion. You clearly don't have any training (formal or otherwise) in linguistics, and your sense of what "true" words are is completely laughable.

So maybe it's the word "invented" that you don't properly understand? Also, since you seem to accept that it *has* meaning, there's no sense in which it can be a "phony" word. (That is something you have really yet to actually define, so I'll await for clarification there.)

The term "troll" or "trolling" is often claimed to have existed in the pre-internet days of UseNet services, and is thought to be derived from military slang from the verb and not the noun (trolling for MiGs). And over time the meaning has taken on different nuances, as all words tend to do over time. But the tracking of that is no different from the tracking of other words in the English language (or any language, really).

If you've read research papers (I'm not sure if you do), you'll find that they're actually quite full of jargon. The term "extimony" in no different from any of the other jargon that's used. The value of it is that it accurately reflects the language of the people who are being presented in the study. To replace their language with another term only serves to diminish the level of accuracy of the presentation.

You might believe in it, but your defense is rather lackluster. The strength of your belief should be grounded in the strength of arguments presented in support of it. Nothing of the scientific method is diminished by the inclusion of particular pieces of jargon. Specifically, your argument above is one based on aesthetics and not intellectual merit.

In fact, your position thus far reminds me a lot of people who value formalism over substance. The sort of people who argue that you should never use a split infinitive, but can't actually explain why. Or math teachers that focus too much on having formal algebraic manipulations correct without also ensuring the proper conceptual development of algebraic reasoning underneath it. There are few things more stifiling to intellectual progress than this approach to knowledge.

At this point, I doubt that you care as much about the integrity the scientific method as you do presenting yourself in that way to try to create some form of credibility for yourself. I'm reminded of another poster who wastes a lot of time trying to argue that the scientific method has exactly Such-And-Such characteristics, while ultimately making irrational and nonsensical arguments.

If you care that deeply about the scientific method, please explain how the use of jargon diminishes it. What specific aspects of it are lost?

Who is this "we" you are talking about? Pointing out that slang may be used within subcultures does nothing to increase the legitimacy of the word - especially its etymology.

Your position has devolved from feigning a phony etymology ( "timony" is not a suffix ) to some lame straw man about my credentials. Obviously, my credentials have nothing to do with anything I've said.

I'm interested in this word because it unmasks the pseudo intellectual facade of Internet atheism. The urge is so strong amongst the subculture that they want to inject it into "research".

You're sole position seems to be any collection of syllables is a word. Strange.

Your response is a perfect example of where trading google for rational thought gets you in trouble. Military slang? LOL Trolling is a form of long line fishing. In fishing you are trying to catch something. Hey, maybe some pilot somewhere used to fish as a kid, or perhaps they were from Alaska, and their dad fished. I don't know. Let's ask google ... LOL

The point, before we diverged on your red herring, is that the Internet's semantic use of "Troll" (yes I knew about trolling as a form of fishing before I even knew about the forum) as a veiled ad hominim used to avoid the argument. Proof of this can easily be seen in the subjective application of its use.

Dude, you are confused, my critique of the use of "extimony" was because it makes the paper seem like an opinion piece and not a research paper.

My argument for it's unscientific nature is based on, well, not having any application of the scientific method. You know that sciency stuff.

Perhaps you are one of those compulsive responders? Any response is a good response - don't believe it.

How exactly are you measuring the "legitimacy" of a word? What does that even mean? How are words "legitimate" or "illegitimate"?

Notice that your representation of my explanation of the origin of the word NEVER claimed that there was a "timony" suffix. If you want to talk about strawman arguments, *THAT* is a strawman argument. You've literally misrepresented my position to and have chosen to knock down something that is obviously false.

With regards to your credentials, I'm making the observation based on the arguments you're presented. Notice that I have not said that *because* you have no credentials, your argument doesn't work. I've explained how your argument doesn't work, and have used that information to conclude that you lack credentials.

The "pseudo-intellectual facade" is coming from your side and your side alone at this point. You have made ZERO intellectual arguments as to why the word should not be used in the paper. Your argument so far is that it is "unsightly." That is simply not an intellectual argument against it.

How is the use of this term "pseudo-intellectual"? I'm claiming that you are presenting a pseudo-intellectual argument because you're throwing around terms that don't mean what you think they mean and are making bad arguments based on being misinformed about the nature of the things you're arguing about, and actively misrepresenting positions that are being taken.

The term "extimony" is defined in the paper, and it is specifically noted that this is a term that is used in the community that is being studied. The fact that the term is used is a factual observation about the community that is being studied. How is the use of a term as a label in this manner a "facade"? I will also note that it is also much more compact than "religious exit narrative" which would be about as clumsy as referring to positive testimonies as "religious entrance narratives."

How so? Do you think the argument presented would change if every use of "extimony" was replaced by "religious exit narrative"? How would that change the content of the paper?

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but very little jargon is has "the scientific method" applied to it. The "scientific method" is much more a study of properties and relationships, not about the specific words you use to talk about something.

The paper is a "data gathering" effort followed with analysis. This is what people are actually saying about themselves and their experiences. It fits into a larger structure of what we know about human society, and the things that have an impact on human behavior. The scientific method does not boil down to simply running experiments in controlled settings all the time. There are times when you simply make observations and try to fit those observations into existing intellectual frameworks to try to understand them.

Ironically, I'm one of the few Christians on this forum that posts actively. But being a Christian doesn't mean that I automatically agree with other Christians, and am in fact quite vocal against the strains of anti-intellectualism that run rampant among Christians. You have happened to step into that space, and I'm simply calling you out on it.

Again, this is not an accurate representation of my statement. Also, "Your" is the proper word to use there.

It's ironic that you're posturing yourself as someone who likes the scientific method, but you don't seem to agree with doing research.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/mi...here-come-from

This isn't hard. But it does require you to be open-minded about reality and willing to look for facts. You don't seem interested in that at all.

Notice that I've engaged the actual content of your argument, and all you've done is misrepresent my statements. If you're looking for "proof" that you're a troll, there it is.

And it's not an ad hominem. That would be discounting your argument because you're a troll. I've discounted your argument for reasons based on the argument itself. By calling you a troll, I'm literally just slapping a label on you and there's no intellectual argument to be won or lost from it.

I always felt a little bad when people lost their faith here.

If I assert a hypothesis that conservative political views in the US are caused by small invisible demons in your head that also make you like guns, I could most likely get a set of data and analyses that would hold up to to falsification and support the hypothesis.

But I could certainly surround it with impressive words. Perhaps I could replace "small demons in your head" with "growing up in a religious household", make some fancy tables, use a type of statistical analysis that is unusual, complex and few understand. Perhaps I could avoid bombastic language and use words like "suggest", "supports", "gives cause to believe" and "possible". Perhaps I'd remove some outliers in the data-set discussion that laymen rarely read even admit that our sampling should probably have included more states. In intellectual grace and with academic conscience I might even concede that we are looking at is a cultural phenomena that doesn't necessarily carry over to other places.

It doesn't really matter, because the problem is still that the model is s**t and the hypothesis ridiculous. And numbers aren't what you need to dispel that, but observation, inquiry and actually bothering to explore the issue.

How many people are required for slang to be considered part of your vocabulary? Do you think the use of slang in research papers enhances the intellectual gravitas of the paper? Do you favor one subculture's slang over another when you write research papers?

You claimed an etymology for "extimony" by claiming it had a viable affix. That you never said anything about the suffix is exactly the point. LOL

LOL Okay, so we are clear, my credentials have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread at all or whether "extimony" has an etymology. Glad we could clear that up. Thanks!

Your false acquisitions about my intent, state of knowledge, and quality of my arguments are simply your opinion. Somehow this does not convince me of anything.

The undeniable truth in this thread is that you have never presented an etymology for the word "extimony" other than it's slang so it's okay.

The paper tries to elevate this subculture slang into something distinct from the word testimony. The truth is that the statements made by apostate Christians are simply testimonies, nothing else.

The use of sub-culturally biased slang is a tell to anyone with a mind in the subject.

Dude, you are wondering around in the weeds and seem to be trying to find the edge. I never said the word usage in the paper said anything about its scientific viability.

Why in the world do you have "data gathering" in quotes? Are you not sure they are data gathering or something?

Observation is just part of the scientific method. It's necessary, but not sufficient. It does not raise to the level of science until you have a claim which is falsifiable. If you think otherwise you are wrong.

Why is this ironic? Your paragraph here seems to be your effort to distance yourself from other Christians. Is this what you are trying to tell me? You have peaked my interest though, do you have some thread where I could see your Christian position articulated?

No not again. You are the one who makes false accusations against me. You seem to be obsessed with being a victim.

It's a fact that I understand and appreciate the scientific method. You are misrepresenting what I have said. I never said I don't agree with doing research.

The article and your MIG red herring have nothing to do with the fact that in today's Internet culture the term "Troll" has been hijacked as a pejorative term used to avoid dealing with the argument's a person presents.

Just because you say that I have no arguments does not make it true.

No, you have not engaged an argument. You have not
1) Provided a real etymology for "extimony"
2) Detailed how the subject paper engages in science.

You have never countered any argument, exactly in which post did you counter either of the two positions I listed just above? Perhaps you could stop name calling ( you are now calling me a troll) and make a concise statement and address the two items above.

I rejoice when I see atheists convert to Christianity.

Huh? Okay, that was weird, your wanderings are a bit hard to follow, but ...

1) I never said observation was not valuable. In fact, I said explicitly that observation and data gathering was valuable.
2) Nothing you said refutes the fact that falsifiability is a necessary part of the scientific method, and that qualitative analysis does not allow falsifiability.

Okay, that said, maybe you are trying to point out the problems with Statistical Inference? Yes, i agree Statistical Inference has weaknesses when applied to the Social Sciences, but hey, I never said it didn't, but that's all the Social Sciences have to make them respectable. I guess it sucks to be a Sociologist.

Just curious, do you consider biological taxonomy to be a science?