180 thing about Noam Chomsky is that he had no respect for the social sciences
| Charismatic charcoal patrolman partner | 12/12/18 | | Curious national faggot firefighter | 12/12/18 | | Charismatic charcoal patrolman partner | 12/12/18 | | arousing pit | 12/12/18 | | Charismatic charcoal patrolman partner | 12/12/18 | | arousing pit | 12/12/18 | | Charismatic charcoal patrolman partner | 12/12/18 | | Lime university | 12/12/18 | | abusive primrose antidepressant drug piazza | 12/12/18 | | Lime university | 12/12/18 | | abusive primrose antidepressant drug piazza | 12/12/18 | | Charismatic charcoal patrolman partner | 12/12/18 | | arousing pit | 12/12/18 | | arousing pit | 12/12/18 | | Charismatic charcoal patrolman partner | 12/12/18 | | Umber Cruise Ship Sandwich | 12/12/18 | | abusive primrose antidepressant drug piazza | 12/12/18 | | Henna new version | 12/12/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 12th, 2018 10:08 PM Author: arousing pit
As it turned out, not a single one of Chomsky's earth-shattering discoveries has proved remotely on a par with "the discovery of waves, particles, genes and so on" in the physical sciences. Even the basic notion of "deep structure" was discarded long ago and is nowadays not mentioned. The Empty Category Principle (ECP), X-bar theory, binding theory and so on and so forth - virtually the entire corpus of Chomskyan technical concepts and terms - got thrown overboard years ago. "Minimalism" meant exploring Chomsky's personal "intuition" that language is "perfect", which in turn meant calling into question just about everything:
"My own view is that almost everything is subject to question, especially if you look at it from a minimalist perspective; about everything you look at, the question is: why is it there? So, if you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have said government is a unifying concept, X-bar theory is a unifying concept, the head parameter is an obvious parameter, ECP, etc, but now none of these looks obvious. X-bar theory, I think, is probably wrong, government maybe does not exist."[40]
In an attempt to salvage his credibility, Chomsky argues that failure and self-repudiation on this scale is normal in science. When Einstein intervened, Newton's more limited conceptions were overthrown. But the difference - as Chomsky well knows - is that physics underwent a genuine scientific revolution, whereas linguistics did not. There is no evidence that Galileo kept changing his mind on fundamentals during his own lifetime, as Chomsky has done. The fact that no Chomskyan claim seems to survive more than a few years suggests that something is wrong.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4154937&forum_id=2#37399007) |
|
|