3 ms·

Well the model needs to be invalidated by science not by elegance or logic. Which grammar is actually more universal or is it a case where both can be applied.

Well the model needs to be invalidated by science not by elegance or logic. Which grammar is actually more universal or is it a case where both can be applied. In the class I attended Chmosky's stuff was taught as foundational linguistics.

solarmist 4y ago
I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Any theory that explains all the facts is valid, there can be more than one competing theory. Fame of the author absolutely matters and so does elegance of the theory. Chomsky has held on so long because it did pretty well and he became very famous, but over time it has needed larger and larger patches to cover its flaws, so other explanations are gaining traction once again.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  Hold on. I'm not biased here. I already admitted my knowledge is outdated. I am actively welcoming new information. I am not arguing. No the elegance of the theory does not matter. The truth of the theory does. I'm saying does the universal grammar you describe, is it actually universal? Amongst all the languages in the world, do they all share this other grammar you describe? If not then the theory is incorrect. It doesn't matter how elegant the theory is. I brought this up specifically because your reasoning wasn't "scientific" it was more along the lines of logical elegance. >Chomsky has held on so long because it did pretty well and he became very famous, but over time it has needed larger and larger patches to cover its flaws, so other explanations are gaining traction once again. See this makes sense and is basically the answer to the question I am asking. So you're basically saying that there were flaws? As in he had to make up new rules constantly because the science was contradicting his theory. Am I correct in this characterization?
  - solarmist 4y ago
    Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I didn’t really get what you were trying to say. I’m not an expert, but if I recall I think the big flaw was insistence on determinism. And to my knowledge operator grammar is universal to the degree there isn’t a counter example in the dozen of languages he explored and hundreds he had others help him with. But to my knowledge the only language he fully mapped was English. Edit: take a look at the article on Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_grammar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_grammar

solarmist 4y ago

I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Any theory that explains all the facts is valid, there can be more than one competing theory. Fame of the author absolutely matters and so does elegance of the theory. Chomsky has held on so long because it did pretty well and he became very famous, but over time it has needed larger and larger patches to cover its flaws, so other explanations are gaining traction once again.

kilgnad 4y ago
Hold on. I'm not biased here. I already admitted my knowledge is outdated. I am actively welcoming new information. I am not arguing. No the elegance of the theory does not matter. The truth of the theory does. I'm saying does the universal grammar you describe, is it actually universal? Amongst all the languages in the world, do they all share this other grammar you describe? If not then the theory is incorrect. It doesn't matter how elegant the theory is. I brought this up specifically because your reasoning wasn't "scientific" it was more along the lines of logical elegance. >Chomsky has held on so long because it did pretty well and he became very famous, but over time it has needed larger and larger patches to cover its flaws, so other explanations are gaining traction once again. See this makes sense and is basically the answer to the question I am asking. So you're basically saying that there were flaws? As in he had to make up new rules constantly because the science was contradicting his theory. Am I correct in this characterization?
- solarmist 4y ago
  Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I didn’t really get what you were trying to say. I’m not an expert, but if I recall I think the big flaw was insistence on determinism. And to my knowledge operator grammar is universal to the degree there isn’t a counter example in the dozen of languages he explored and hundreds he had others help him with. But to my knowledge the only language he fully mapped was English. Edit: take a look at the article on Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_grammar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_grammar