Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!insosf1.infonet.net!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: IS LINGUISTICS A SCIENCE?
Message-ID: <CzqI1u.IxG@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <kjp1003-211194110937@pc1003.sidg.pwf.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 18:58:40 GMT
Lines: 43

In article <kjp1003-211194110937@pc1003.sidg.pwf.cam.ac.uk>,
 <kjp1003@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>3 points with ref to the ongoing discussion of whether linguistics is a
>science. 
>2)The second point that I wish to take issue with is the demand implicit in
>the comments from Perotean that sciences be able to predict. Firstly it is
>not true that the sciences as traditionally defined can always do this, and
>secondly, when predictions are given,then they often bear little relation
>to the real world, since they are forced to assume a closed system. There
>is an intersting discussion of this in Ohala 1986 (In PHONOLOGICA 1984).
>Linguistics is concerned with the description and explanation of language,
>which can be seen as in part a social and in part a pyschological
>phenomena. Therefore the limited knowledge we have of parameters for
>variation conditioned by social and pyschological factors is bound to
>hinder us somewhat. However, good linguists DO use empirical evidence, and
>there is work that can be done. 

I agree with your point about prediction; too much is usually made of this.  
Linguistics is ultimately part of the biological sciences; and biology
just isn't as prediction-oriented as physics.  There are famous stories
of successful prediction in physics (the discovery of Neptune; Einstein's 
eclipse, the discovery of the positron, etc.), but biology's greatest hits 
(e.g. evolution, Mendelian genetics, the discovery of the genetic code) have 
been descriptive, not predictive. 

And even physicists are not always so good at prediction.  This was brought
home to me by a discussion on sci.physics a few years ago, on what would
happen if you were caught in a falling elevator.  Pretty much everyone agreed
that you'd be in trouble, either dead or severely injured.  This prediction
turned out to be quite wrong; actual experiences were discovered, and the
people involved survived quite well.  The cause of error was soon discovered:
the analyzers had forgotten the slowing effect of the cushion of air trapped
in the elevator shaft.  So the lack of prediction doesn't mean that there
was no science; descriptive theories were produced (in abundance), and the
facts had to be covered.

>3)What we also have to consider is why we want to be a science in the first
>place. The status of the discipline needs to be measured according to its
>own achievements, not according to the requirements of other disciplines
>such as physics. 

The disease of measuring all disciplines according to the norms of physics
has been nicely described as "physics envy".
