4 ms·

>I agree with the Language Instinct since it sticks with our current scientific understanding of how the brain scientifically and mathematically creates grammar

>I agree with the Language Instinct since it sticks with our current scientific understanding of how the brain scientifically and mathematically creates grammar. I disagree with much of The Better Angels book since it contradicts many anthropological and archaeological studies of human societies. So you agree with "The Language Instinct" because it supports the prevailing view and you disagree with "The Better Angels..." because it doesn't. Why the appeal to authority? Why not judge the books on their arguments and evidence?

pastProlog 10y ago
> because it supports the prevailing view and you disagree with "The Better Angels..." because it doesn't. No, I said the Language Instinct talked about science and the brain, and Better Angels talked about political questions. One is scientific, one is polemic. Pinker refers to Noam Chomsky in his scientific books, and he is an author of similar note. Chomsky writes mathematical formulas to describe human and computer languages, which are widely used - so there is no argument to their validity (unless you have some logical proof that Chomsky normal form can not describe context-free grammars). Chomsky also writes in other books about what he thinks about Israeli foreign policy - which is political and polemic. I don't know how much more I can explain how there is a difference between an error-free mathematical proof and a controversial political opinion. They are apples and oranges.
- maroonblazer 10y ago
  You're misrepresenting what Pinker is saying in "Better Angels". His claim is that violence globally has declined and he backs that up with quantified data and argument. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not disagree that there probably are some remote cultures that are less violent but it doesn't detract from his larger point.

pastProlog 10y ago

> because it supports the prevailing view and you disagree with "The Better Angels..." because it doesn't. No, I said the Language Instinct talked about science and the brain, and Better Angels talked about political questions. One is scientific, one is polemic. Pinker refers to Noam Chomsky in his scientific books, and he is an author of similar note. Chomsky writes mathematical formulas to describe human and computer languages, which are widely used - so there is no argument to their validity (unless you have some logical proof that Chomsky normal form can not describe context-free grammars). Chomsky also writes in other books about what he thinks about Israeli foreign policy - which is political and polemic. I don't know how much more I can explain how there is a difference between an error-free mathematical proof and a controversial political opinion. They are apples and oranges.

maroonblazer 10y ago
You're misrepresenting what Pinker is saying in "Better Angels". His claim is that violence globally has declined and he backs that up with quantified data and argument. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not disagree that there probably are some remote cultures that are less violent but it doesn't detract from his larger point.