Thread: страдательные причастия прошедшего времени (Very Difficult Question)

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

I am an anti-scientist

What does it mean?

What does it mean?

I don't believe in the existence of solid scientific rules in social sciences (including anthropology, linguistics). I don't believe that social phenomenon could be explained or understood. But I believe in the prevailance of the dominant paradigm.
The reason why I left my PhD in Finance in the third year is that I became an anti-scientist or more specific a relativist.

Being a biologist and a true follower of evolution theory I think that all social things are just the means of human adaptive changes, just as language itself. It is another strategy from those used by other living beings: instead of adapting to new climat, food etc. we chose to adjust our adaptivness to excellence, having a highly organized society with the means of communication, division of labour etc. For example, for aphis it is necessary to evolve to new species just to start eating another plant, but we, people, can try new food everyday and our means of cooking can convert even most poisonous foods to edible meals.
I do not know about "scienceness" of sociology, psychology and such, but linguistics and anthropology are totally science for me.
I'm sorry for my not very clear explanations, but my English somewhat restrains me from good scientific language.

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

I don't believe in the existence of solid scientific rules in social sciences (including anthropology, linguistics). I don't believe that social phenomenon could be explained or understood. But I believe in the prevailance of the dominant paradigm.
The reason why I left my PhD in Finance in the third year is that I became an anti-scientist or more specific a relativist.

We, who deal with natural or technical sciences professionally, often feel a kind of snobbery about humanitarian and social disciplines. According to our methodological icon Karl Popper, they can not use Scientific Method consistently because due to the nature of their objects, their statements actually can not satisfy Falsifiability criterion (and thus can't be really "scientific").

But among the humanitarian disciplines the Comparative linguistics is one the most respectable in the opinion of many "naturalists" and "techs". Its methodological apparatus is quite solid and exact, and the results are least questionable.

We, who deal with natural or technical sciences professionally, often feel a kind of snobbery about humanitarian and social disciplines. According to our methodological icon Karl Popper, they can not use Scientific Method consistently because due to the nature of their objects, their statements actually can not satisfy Falsifiability criterion (and thus can't be really "scientific")

Some terminology I haven't came across for some years. Just allow me to add an additional opinion, that does not neccesarilly disagree or agree with those mentioned above.
Ludwig Wittgenstein* and his theory of social games are in my opinion the most descriptive, or if you want the dominant paradigm, in Comparative linguistics.
"Ancient Greek can be compared to the lingusitic game with the most comprehend and accurate rules, which cannot be explained based on the current experimental methodolgy due to the lack of context or even understanding of that particual time being ...", "the philosophical theocracy of that time required the structure of a linguistic vehicle so complicated that lead the deliberate alternation of the intrinsic character of the language to a tool of propagandation of mere intelligence so as to exterminate the slighest margin of randomness**, which at that time of naturalism and humanitarism, was considered more or less a disease" - Philosophical Investigation, 1953***

* Perhaps the most influential philosopher of social sciences of the 20th century
** The underlying was done by Wittgenstein on his original book
***Translated from the Greek Version of 1998

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

"Ancient Greek can be compared to the lingusitic game with the most comprehend and accurate rules, which cannot be explained based on the current experimental methodolgy due to the lack of context or even understanding of that particual time being ...", "the philosophical theocracy of that time required the structure of a linguistic vehicle so complicated that lead the deliberate alternation of the intrinsic character of the language to a tool of propagandation of mere intelligence so as to exterminate the slighest margin of randomness**, which at that time of naturalism and humanitarism, was considered more or less a disease" - Philosophical Investigation, 1953***

So basically he thinks that Ancient Greek was a construct of philosopers rather than natural language. And the first people's common Greek was Koine after Alexander?

So basically he thinks that Ancient Greek was a construct of philosopers rather than natural language. And the first people's common Greek was Koine after Alexander?

I don't know and unfortunately we cannot ask him
Koine Greek? Very few Greeks know what even this mean I am impressed it-ogo! Honestly impressed!
it-ogo I think you should start studying less and come to Cyprus and help me with these thousand Russian millionaires who don't know how and where to spend their money
And when we make a lot of money... we can sponsor the research on Comparative Linguistics