Tempodivalse:...Sorry to be a downer ...

I feel like this has strayed far from my point, which is merely that, actually, from a completely objective statistical perspective , the problem is really not that profound. Have people failed at getting a narrow range of results with a high statistical certainty, yes. But those people have hardly been monomaniacally committed to studying this. Hardly. You say there have been "innumerable attempts." I count two. My point, at this juncture, is really no longer about Esperanto at all but about the astonishing lack of perspective on how scientific data is collected and interpreted. NO ONE is looking at Esperanto! No one cares. By comparison, there are hundreds of articles per year written about dung beetles. The reason we don't have numbers on Esperanto is because "no one gives a flying rat's arse." Not because it is problematic, scientifically. This is a complete red herring, full stop. [Incidentally, can anyone give me an equivalent synonym for "flying rat's arse?", en Esperanto]

You say there have been "innumerable attempts." I count two.

Definitely more than that. "Innumerable" was a bit hyperbolic, but figuring out the number of speakers is almost a perennial goal in Esperantujo. Perhaps this Vikipedio article can give you an idea of the issues involved, and some background history (sadly no English translation available; though there are abridged articles in the French and Spanish Wikipedias).

I'd definitely agree, though, that Esperanto's poor reputation among much of academia is hindering a more wide-scale, comprehensive, and professionally-run effort.

seveer:The reason we don't have numbers on Esperanto is because "no one gives a flying rat's arse." Not because it is problematic, scientifically.

To draw that conclusion, scientifically, surely you'd need to know how problematic it actually is (or at least be fairly certain), in order to discount the difficulty of the problem like that. But to follow your logic, since "nobody gives a flying rat's arse" about this issue it would stand to reason that we probably don't have an accurate understanding of its difficulty, because a proper appraisal has never been undertaken, and relevant data is lacking due to paucity of studies.

I think, however, that "extremely difficult to do with any degree of accuracy" is probably correct, given what we know about how language usage stats are calculated (which in my case is very little, but I assume there are experts in the field who have commented on this).

I guess it could turn out, having invested monomaniacal effort in this area, that the problem wasn't actually as hard to solve as we supposed it was. Conversely, it may be that even the pessimists have underestimated just how difficult it is. But at this point all we can do is speculate about that. For now, we have a problem that appears to be on a par with something like curing the common cold - fantastically difficult.

seveer:Incidentally, can anyone give me an equivalent synonym for "flying rat's arse?", en Esperanto

I know of nothing in use quite as colourful as that but one way to capture the basic meaning would be "Mi tute prifajfas tion".

seveer:

Tempodivalse:...Sorry to be a downer ...

I feel like this has strayed far from my point, which is merely that, actually, from a completely objective statistical perspective , the problem is really not that profound. Have people failed at getting a narrow range of results with a high statistical certainty, yes. But those people have hardly been monomaniacally committed to studying this. Hardly. You say there have been "innumerable attempts." I count two. My point, at this juncture, is really no longer about Esperanto at all but about the astonishing lack of perspective on how scientific data is collected and interpreted. NO ONE is looking at Esperanto! No one cares. By comparison, there are hundreds of articles per year written about dung beetles. The reason we don't have numbers on Esperanto is because "no one gives a flying rat's arse." Not because it is problematic, scientifically. This is a complete red herring, full stop. [Incidentally, can anyone give me an equivalent synonym for "flying rat's arse?", en Esperanto]

Really? So it's all a matter of neglect and failure to even comprehend how scientific data is collected and interpreted? As if the many scientists who are acquainted with Esperanto have never turned the problem over in their minds. I also resent the implication that since no-one here has answered you to satisfaction, it must be a matter of scientific ignorance. I had a rather decent education, including maths and physics and I know perfectly well how to interpret data. Tempodivalse listed some of the major hurdles including the difficulty of determining a 'speaker' as opposed to people who just sign up for a course. Or indeed people who just say they speak it when they don't!
My brother works in statistical research for a company that researches product usage. Sometimes, even after long-term study, the figures turn out to be inaccurate. Statistics is scientific, but the subject matter, i.e. society; people and their whims, is most certainly not.

Vestitor:I think the answer to the question is common knowledge by now. How can it be possible to count or even estimate Esperanto 'speakers' in the way this is done with other languages (usually by taking base population stats and making extrapolations)? It's not possible.

Internet activity, such as signing up to a forum or course is no guarantee of a true count.

Exactly! One of the Duolingo users has made this very mistake. He made a map on GoogleMaps of Esperantists, except, not content with Duolingo users he, for instance, came to Lernu and trawled the user list and put everyone here on his map.........including people who signed up to Lernu more than 5 years ago and stayed for 30 minutes and haven't been back since. H's doing a disservice, IMHO.

Esperanto can ride piggyback on English, because the easiest way to learn English is to learn Esperanto first. Here is a link to a discussion of this “springboard to languages” concept.

Vestitor:
I also resent...

Clearly.

Vestitor:...no-one here has answered you to satisfaction, it must be a matter of scientific ignorance...

I'm done riding this merry-go-round and I think you are increasingly mischaracterizing my statements. For one thing:

Vestitor:...As if the many scientists who are acquainted with Esperanto...

Go back and read my posts. I'm questioning the unsubstantiated claims made here. I am not questioning the scientists. If you can find me something written by a professional scientist working in this field that backs up your position, provide it. In fact, that would be an ideal outcome for me, because I don't have any emotional vested interest in the answer. I just want actual information. If you don't have any, you don't have to pipe up. Every scientific paper I have ever read begins with a discussion of the history of the problem and why it is difficult (read:why it hasn't been solved yet). The papers then end abprutly with the statement "Someone else would have done this by now. The End."

Just kidding! They then go on to present their evidence and solve the problem or refine our understanding of it. Scientists are tenacious, unlike certain wet blankets in this forum. I will happily accept evidence and, if warranted, completely reverse my position. I'm sorry but these vague, broad statements about unnamed people of nonspecific number are not edifying for me. Some here have provided actual information and I appreciate that. You seem to just want to grind an axe.

Now, to respond to someone who addressed the actual substance of my post:

tommjames:
To draw that conclusion, scientifically, surely you'd need to know how problematic it actually is (or at least be fairly certain), in order to discount the difficulty of the problem like that.

This is fair, however, the central idea of science is to maintain open inquiry. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with those who would halt the study of a topic. This is a very basic tenet. I want to be clear here: I don't think people should waste all of their time on things that will likely not pan out. There is something to be said for low hanging fruit. My point is that the casual disregard (on the part of some) for explaining why you think this is a -not just difficult- but insoluble problem, and then expecting me to prove why it is not, is entirely backward. The problem hasn't even been quantitatively defined! What if I just want the population of speakers +/- 50% Are you really telling me a well funded talented scientist couldn't do this? Have you read FiveThirtyEight?

"No one will ever find the Higgs boson."
"Why?"
"It's hard, 'cause, I read some people think you can't get it from counting internet users, and it's not in the census."

The purpose of proof is to understand, not to verify.
-Arnold Ross

seveer:What if I just want the population of speakers +/- 50% Are you really telling me a well funded talented scientist couldn't do this?

Quite conceiveably. It may well be that no matter the funds and margin of error, the chance of success is minuscule. You said above "the problem is really not that profound". But to the contrary, it seems to me that counting a scattered community of loosely defined people (how do you even define "Esperantist" anyway?), many of whom leave no trace, across multiple continents, is an exceedingly difficult problem.

I'm happy to keep an open mind on it, but in the absence of any further data I just go with the majority view of those who have taken the time to investigate this matter. At least until the day when everybody is hooked into the big brother new world order global surveillance system - then we'll know for sure

Tempodivalse: (etc. etc. etc.)

For these reasons, I think we are left with only the ability to make educated guesses within a wide range.

My question is, does it really matter in the Grand Scheme? I mean, Shawnee has only about 200 speakers but that doesn't mean anything as far as the question of its status as a "real language" or anything else. The numbers game is just that; a game.

seveer:Therefore, the burden of proof lies with those who would halt the study of a topic.

I'm not trying to halt the study of the Esperantophone population; I simply wished to suggest that the task is much more difficult than you believe, in light of past experience. But if you (or anyone else) feel you can succeed anyway, and you have the right tools and support - then power to you!

You seem to just want to grind an axe.

I'm not sure what I would gain from preventing a study about the number of Esperantists. To the contrary, it would be mildly interesting to see what conclusions someone comes up with.

"No one will ever find the Higgs boson."
"Why?"
"It's hard, 'cause, I read some people think you can't get it from counting internet users, and it's not in the census."

Funny, but I'm not sure what point you wanted to make here - finding the Higgs boson and counting the number of Esperantists are vastly different in terms of the methodology you apply, the tools you use, and perhaps most importantly in the epistemic element - any conclusion made by a study of the Esperanto population would not be falsifiable in the same way as a hypothesis or discovery in physics.

If that makes me a "wet blanket", well, OK. I don't really care.