3 ms·
I was addressing a lay audience like myself, so I was looking for a big picture, not primary sources. It takes more than a google scholar search to distinguish
by akkartik 14y ago
I was addressing a lay audience like myself, so I was looking for a big picture, not primary sources. It takes more than a google scholar search to distinguish minor tweaks to our understanding from radical changes. Your example isn't freely available, so I have no basis to judge whether it's paying $20 for.
Is Symbolic Species now outdated in some respect? Is there a different theory that better explains observations? Please educate rather than flatly disagree or tell me to go get educated.
- Estragon 14y agoThen what was your basis for claiming it's "the current state of the art in language origin theories?"
- akkartik 14y agoThat I haven't found anything better or more comprehensive. I think that's what state of the art means, not "less than 1 year old" or some arbitrary time horizon like that. Perhaps I should have said "IMO". I tend to assume that opinion is implied in most statements, especially for something hard to define like "state of the art". Edit: you're right, I was misusing the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art). It's a lot more concrete than I realized, and it has nothing to do with lay readers. Apologies. Unfortunately I can't update the original. If I could I'd rephrase it as "the most comprehensive story on language evolution for lay readers". It sounds like you don't actually have a different theory or a substantive criticism. Is that correct?
- Estragon 14y agoJudge for yourself. I think you understand what I was saying.