Chomsky wrong on language?
- This topic has 124 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:Not fingding evidence of a universal grammar does not disprove the theory…
You'll know from your reading of the philosophy of science, YMS, that even supporters of capitalism like Karl Popper have argued that 'absence of evidence' can't disprove a theory.And that 'evidence absent' for one perspective, is 'evidence present' for another.Science, eh? Who'd've thought it?Bring back 19th century certainty, eh? And listen to the academics, who claim to have a neutral method, and ignore that trouble-maker Einstein?
When the range of application of a theory is limited, and research into all available instances of applicability fails to support a predicted consequence of that theory then there are only two options, to abandon the theory or to modify one of its hypotheses. When the hypotheses that must be modified is the central supporting principle of that theory, then it is usually weakened to the point of untenability. When that theory also assumes conditions rendered impossible by other substantiated theories, like the need for evolution to be able to predict future events, then, at that point it is usually abandoned – as Chomsky's theory has been by most linguists.
This isn’t my area really But are we missing a small point with this Chomsky thing. Wasn’t Chomsky’s universal grammar thing firstly an anti-thesis or critique of previous standing theories that I think are far more dingbat than Chomsky’s are? Are we in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water? I am just asking questions here because I am vaguely interested even if it is drifting a bit away from communism. Does or can written language fall out of the scope of a universal grammar analysis? I ‘thought’ that syntax or word order was an important part of universal grammar analysis. However in Latin word order doesn’t have to matter? So for instance you can write ‘Romans go home’ in any order you like; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8 Which is why I liked it.
"Wasn’t Chomsky’s universal grammar thing firstly an anti-thesis or critique of previous standing theories that I think are far more dingbat than Chomsky’s are?"Yes, Chomsky burst onto the scene with his critique of BF Skinner's behaviourism – a kind of materialist, cultural determinist attempt to explain language. As Knight rightly put it, Chomsky's review was one of the most devastating intellectual demolition jobs of all time. It's worth digging out and scanning – it's on Chomsky's website I think. It's a master class in clear logical thinking and the dangers of scientism.
PS Actually I think "scientism" is the wrong word. Perhaps more pretentiousness dressed up in scientific jargon.
LB: You used my post as yet another excuse to drivel on about ideology again! Was it satire? Was the joke on me? If so, very good!
stuartw2112 wrote:LB: You used my post as yet another excuse to drivel on about ideology again! Was it satire? Was the joke on me? If so, very good!Yeah, I really should use smaller words and simpler concepts when discussing with you, because the big and complex ones are obviously 'drivel' to you.Perhaps Ladybird do a 'Janet and John' book on the philosophy of science? No? Ah well, ignorance it is, for you, stuart.
Quote:Perhaps Ladybird do a 'Janet and John' book on the philosophy of science?Having tried to follow and understand several threads for many months now and failing miserably, i hope they do have such a book. Alternatively, there might be something in the series "Ideology for Dummies" i can read…
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:Perhaps Ladybird do a 'Janet and John' book on the philosophy of science?Having tried to follow and understand several threads for many months now and failing miserably, i hope they do have such a book. Alternatively, there might be something in the series "Ideology for Dummies" i can read…
I've tried to play my part in explaining some very difficult issues, alan, but there doesn't appear to be any taste for taking the discussion forward, here. I think that there's a fear that if the logic of scientific thought is taken to its conclusion, that it'll be the 'end of science'.I've given some analogies and metaphors to try to help. Remember my characterisation of three notions about the interaction between humans and the world:Idealism: reality is a blank sheet of paper, upon which humans anything freely write;Materialism: reality is a sheet of paper with numbered dots, which humans merely 'join up';Marx's idealism-materialism: reality is a sheet of paper with unnumbered dots, which humans must number themselves before 'joining the dots'.It might not be good, and surely can be improved, but it's as 'Janet and John' as I can get.I, at least, have tried.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Alternatively, there might be something in the series "Ideology for Dummies" i can read…Actually "Ideology: A Very Short Introduction" by Michael Freeden isn't too bad.
I know you have tried, LBird, and have done so on several occasions to simplify and explain the debate but yet the more topics it has encompassed, the more i feel distanced from the discussions…an outcome i think you most definitely would not wish to happenYou are not alone responsible, your protagonists are as equally as bewildering to me.It is a puzzlement to me that several threads have been inordinately lengthy (and engaged in by so few contributers) yet some actual issues of current importance have gone with such little comment.Even Marx eventually got up off his British Library chair to address more pressing problems by participating in the IWMA. His theoretical readings and writings were then put to practical use (for ideological purposes) on behalf and in defence of workers. Even Dietzgen and Pannekoek got their hands dirty with action. I await such a development from these exchanges which may well be fundamental to peoples understanding of socialism and the revolutionary process but seem to lack any application right now…i know it is such an obvious cliched comment but it is appropriate and it is meant to hurt deeply “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."And i see little evidence of any political action stemming from all these exchanges we have been having…Not even suggestions or proposals of how to communicate these ideas to the people that count…working people.Or are they expected to behave like a vacuum cleaner and hoover up all the thoughts and writings that abound and somehow differentiate their usefulness and potential automatically? Isn't ideology spread by education, talking, reading listening, as well as experience itself?
Dave B wrote:This isn’t my area really But are we missing a small point with this Chomsky thing. Wasn’t Chomsky’s universal grammar thing firstly an anti-thesis or critique of previous standing theories that I think are far more dingbat than Chomsky’s are? Are we in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water? I am just asking questions here because I am vaguely interested even if it is drifting a bit away from communism. Does or can written language fall out of the scope of a universal grammar analysis? I ‘thought’ that syntax or word order was an important part of universal grammar analysis. However in Latin word order doesn’t have to matter? So for instance you can write ‘Romans go home’ in any order you like; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8 Which is why I liked it.That is known as "Paliondramas", ( Palindrome ) , "capicua" and 'Anagramas" Latin was not the language spoken by the Roman slaves and Plebeians, the peasants, and the workers of Rome, it was spoken by the Nobles and the wealth peoples, and their children, it was a dead language spoken by them, and then, it was adopted by the Catholic church, and they used it in order to write the Vulgate. ( Vulgata ) Rome is the only empire which adopted a foreign language, and it was the Greek language, and classical Greek was the language used for the Christian scriptures, and Latin and classical Greek has being used for the Taxonomy of the natural sciences, and some legal system have inherited Latin words in their legal terminology
alanjjohnstone wrote:I know you have tried, LBird, and have done so on several occasions to simplify and explain the debate but yet the more topics it has encompassed, the more i feel distanced from the discussions…an outcome i think you most definitely would not wish to happenYes, I have tried, and I know that, with you at least, I've failed. That makes me unhappy.
ajj wrote:And i see little evidence of any political action stemming from all these exchanges we have been having…Not even suggestions or proposals of how to communicate these ideas to the people that count…working people.But I'm not likely to join a group, and again engage in 'political action', if I think that the group argues that it listens to the rocks, am I? That's precisely what the 'materialists/physicalists' are doing.As for 'communicating to working people', I know that my explanations do work with some people at least, because I've been praised many times in the past for my explanations of difficult issues, by relatives, friends, workmates, and even strangers in pubs.As I've said many times, I'm baffled why members and fellow-travellers of the SPGB don't seem to want to learn about a subject which, it's now clear to me, most have never read anything about whatsoever, and yet continue to argue an outdated 19th century view of science and knowledge production.It's very like dealing with a religious sect, unfortunately, alan. Perhaps that is a better explanation as to why workers like me aren't joining, and moving back into political action alongside you.That is, the real problem is an institutional one, not a failure of workers to act. You seem to be one of a tiny number that I can imagine acting alongside. That should be a worry for you, and the company you keep.
LB: Have you considered that it is your very ideology and your insistence on the importance of it that makes discussion with you so fruitless? After all, if you've got your ideology and I've got mine, and this rules our perceptions, and there's no such thing as individual opinion or any objective reason why we should believe one thing rather than another, what purpose conversation? And what could "workers power" based on such unthinking ideology be other than a grotesque tyranny – one indeed that the world has only in living memory seen the back of?
LBird wrote:Yes, I have tried, and I know that, with you at least, I've failed. That makes me unhappy.This observation from a non-member of this forum should make you even more unhappy:
Quote:I am a loyal reader of the forum. Sometimes I recommend threads on it to friends — such as the thread on hunter-gatherers. (But then I have to warn them to not read any postings from or back to the tiresome maniac LBird.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.