The role of internet communities in ex-christian deconversion
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?
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.
"Troll" is a phony word Internet culture invented to allow mob ad hominem while pretending to be righteous. It describes nothing the English language doesn't already succinctly describe.
Also, the word "troll" pre-existed the internet. Your statement seems to indicate that you aren't aware of this fact.
Thanks for saying you thought the paper was well done, I appreciate that.
I don't consider the use of that term to be particularly "anti-Christian", per se. In any case, I do not find it surprising that recent ex-Christian deconverts have a negative attitude towards Christianity. Sometimes people on this forum express negative opinions of Christianity which I disagree with. Nevertheless I think if it's an important aspect of their self-understanding and we would be doing something wrong if we tried too hard to file down the rough edges. So even if you think "extimony" is inherently pejorative I don't find it problematic to reproduce the language, given the descriptive aims of the paper.
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.
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.
Also, the word "troll" pre-existed the internet. Your statement seems to indicate that you aren't aware of this fact.
I disagree with your (implicit) claim here that qualitative methods are inherently unfalsifiable. For example, for this particular study I could provide a 3rd party with the exact and complete data set we analyzed and a complete description of the methods used (including software), and they could form their own opinions about our conclusions. Or, I think we've given enough information that other researchers could compare our results to data they collect independently, and see if their data supports similar conclusions. I think that amounts to roughly the same level of falsifiability that is typical in quantitative sociological articles.
I do think that there are questions that are not easily answered by qualitative studies alone, particularly questions about representativeness. On the other hand, I think there are questions that are very hard to answer through purely quantitative studies, because you give up a lot of rich data to boil things down into a form that is amenable to statistical analysis. And statistical analysis is subject to its own problems as well, particularly related to how one goes about measuring things. I think the two types of research are complementary, but then this is a debate that is very old in social sciences.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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".
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).
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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."
My argument for it's unscientific nature is based on, well, not having any application of the scientific method. You know that sciency stuff.
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.
Perhaps you are one of those compulsive responders? Any response is a good response - don't believe it.
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
https://www.theguardian.com/media/mi...here-come-from
Interestingly, while the verb form of the word is used frequently, in transcripts of the Usenet days, you often find the formation "troller", rather than "troll", to describe one who engages in trolling, suggesting that the word was originally a verb, and that the noun came later.
And if you go back a few more years, that's just what you find. In 1972, the term "trolling for MiGs" is documented as being used by US navy pilots in Vietnam, with the sense of "searching/lying in wait for/ trying to provoke a reaction from" enemy planes.
And if you go back a few more years, that's just what you find. In 1972, the term "trolling for MiGs" is documented as being used by US navy pilots in Vietnam, with the sense of "searching/lying in wait for/ trying to provoke a reaction from" enemy planes.
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.
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.
Falsifiable conclusions bring it within the realm of science. Statistical analysis exposes falsifiability. Quantitative methods allow statistical analysis to be brought to bear. No matter how many impressive words are flung around qualitative analysis does not meet the measure of science. I'll agree it can be interesting and can provide leads for further research, but science? No.
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.
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.
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 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 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just because you say that I have no arguments does not make it true.
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.
1) Provided a real etymology for "extimony"
2) Detailed how the subject paper engages in science.
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 rejoice when I see atheists convert to Christianity.
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.
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.
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?
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE