5 ms·

Also the first three paragraphs have no relation to the rest of the article and seems placed here for apologetical or political purpose.

• benbreen 8y ago
  Author here. I actually agree with you about the post being disjointed - Res Obscura is basically just my historical notebook where I jot down unusual things I might want to remember. Was teaching the Crusades to my world history class this week, hence the content about that. Like I say toward the end, I'm mostly interested in the case as a hypothetical early example of pseudo-Lamarckian thinking (i.e. the assumption that babies somehow "know" their parents' language despite having no contact with them).
  • nyc111 8y ago
    > that babies somehow "know" their parents' language despite having no contact with them But this can be easily found out by talking to these Chinese twins who grew up in the US. Do they speak Chinese naturally? I guess not. I don't believe language would be hereditary. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399360/Chinese-twins-separated-birth-adopted-2-American-families-reunited.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399360/Chinese-twin...
    • benbreen 8y ago
      Sure, naturally we know that, in a post-Darwin world. But from a history of science standpoint, I'm interested by early attempts to understand aspects of heredity before Darwin.
  • titanix2 8y ago
    Thanks for the explanation. With a couple more content it could have be an article on its one, I think.