[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Improbable Probability Statements

RE: Improbable Probability Statements

Jim Beale's response is very lucid and shows the workings of a well 
trained and orderly mind. However, the underlying theme of his 
position is one which I think has problems. A single sentence will 
suffice to illustrate:

Jim  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
Surface irregularities do not negate the existence of a perfectly 
orderly, rational, deep structure.
>>>>>>>>>

Are natural languages *perfectly orderly, rational?* This sounds to me 
like 19th century science,  which was convinced that under all the 
apparent complexity is a *perfectly orderly, rational* world which 
requires nothing but cautious observation to explain. I have 
reservations about this. 

I am not arguing for chaos. In fact I think the term *Chaos* as it is 
currently used by the Chaos Cult is a loaded word. The class of 
phenomena which are being called *Chaos* are really *complex systems.* 
There is order there, but order of a complexity that it does not 
appear to the casual empiricist. 

I am suggesting that NT Greek and all natural languages are like 
*complex systems.* Complex systems are difficult to model. They behave 
according to rules, but all the rules are not currently understood. 
*Complex Systems* are modeled with high level mathematics (certainly 
not my forte). But for those who cannot do this kind of work, models 
can be built using metaphors to help us guess more accurately at what 
is taking place. 

Now I am assuming that when Jim says * a perfectly orderly, rational, 
deep structure* this is not the kind of thing he is talking about. I 
am assuming that Jim thinks that the *perfectly orderly, rational* 
aspect of language is observable using traditional methods of 
empiricism. This notion is what I think has serious problems. 

For the purpose of translation and exegesis of biblical Greek, I think 
that a certain tolerance of indeterminacy needs to be cultivated. One 
analogy I use to help me with this is borrowed from electronics. 
Analog circuits have signals and they have noise. If the signal to 
noise ratio is high enough there is no problem in understanding the 
signal. Indeterminacy in language is *like* (not equal to, but like) 
noise. We can read and understand the NT and LXX because the signal is 
strong and the noise is weak. 

Now the *Complex Systems/Chaos* people have come along and told us 
that noise has structure, meaningful structure, if we can only decode 
it. This kind of thinking may be fruitful in building a better 
language model but it is going to be a technical business and few of 
us liberal arts types will be competent to participate. 

Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
Follow-Ups: