As for me, I’ve spent the last eighteen months intermittently investigating Will Styler’s initially intriguing claim that “Speech is an Elaborate Cover for Widespread Telepathy,” (SpecGram CLXX.4, August, 2014). Unlike Mr. Styler, I am aware of the (admittedly sparse) literature that precedes him. Gebhard von Blucher and Moira Daugherty many years earlier investigated “The Role of Language in Telepathic Communication” (The Journal of the Linguistic Society of South-
As with many Great Ideas, these two complement each other nicely. While von Blucher & Daugherty have concluded on empirical grounds that “telepathic communication is linguistic communication,” Styler makes a more abstractly motivated appeal via Occam’s Razor, concluding that there must be a “species-
As is so often the case, the most important academic and scientific advancement in a paper has been relegated to a footnote.6 Styler is no different, offhandedly commenting that a by-product of his analysis is a confirmation of Linguistic Relativity (Styler, fn 4).
As soon as I realized the relevance to and of linguistic relativity
As the more attentive and erudite reader must surely have concluded, this is essentially the definition of an antenna, unfortunately bringing Parapsycholinguistics firmly into the realm of
As disappointing as this is
As for me, I will continue my investigative research, safely ensconced in the UofS DisApoIntMent Dept, where we do not give credence to aurum auguries, content enough just to be in our ivory towers.
1 As an aside, it must be noted that his claim that speech serves “primarily as a cover-up to prevent widespread persecution of telepathic communicators” is significantly more dubious. If we are all telepathic communicators, who is going to persecute whom? Perhaps persecution is just an inherent part of the human condition.
2 As an aside, I use “agree” in the loosest sense here, since the theories of von Blucher & Daugherty and Styler only agree in the presence of telepathic communication, but are fundamentally at odds in terms of the details. However, we shall not allow such detail to derail the narrative or defail this undertaking.
3 As an aside, this is admittedly hyperbolic, and a slight dig4 at “E.Q.” and “G.M.-G.”, whose problematic appearance in our story is yet to come.5
4 As an aside that is somewhat further aside, perhaps a “digging slight” would be equally, if not more, appropriate.
5 As an aside that wanders even further afield, I am considering dubbing this sort of argumentation “Chopra’s Razor,” which is used to slice up your adversaries (rather than their arguments) by introducing nonsensical quantumness into your own arguments, so as to debilitate your opponent by giving them an anti-
6 As to references, see Jones, “On the Speculative Grammarian,” SpecGram CLXXIII.1, May 2015, fn 4.
7 As examples, consider Spanish and Portuguese, Dutch and German, or Volapük and sticking your hand in a running garbage disposal.
8 As a generalization, consider also sign language hand movements or the non-
9 As to the application and role of hand movements in writing and eye movements in reading vis-
10 As one should not name names, I shall refrain from sharing specifics, but the names of the worst offenders rhyme with Entin Quatkinson and Gurray Mell-
|Controvertible Things You Didn’t Know You Didn’t Know
|A Venery of Terms
|SpecGram Vol CLXXVI, No 2 Contents|