tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post3630348616258876485..comments2024-03-19T01:45:39.263-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: CowbellNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-59609180417070655962013-07-06T09:09:04.852-07:002013-07-06T09:09:04.852-07:00Actually, re-reading my own comments, I realize I ...Actually, re-reading my own comments, I realize I accepted a dichotomy from your post between "figuring out how" and "figuring out why" that I really shouldn't have. I'm not sure there is any principled difference at all -- just "why" questions higher and lower in the explanatory chain. Doesn't change my urge to nuance your oomph discussion in more or less the same way, but I might have phrased my comments somewhat differently. Enough for now, however.David Pesetskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09666557087629655596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-80678650622023490742013-07-06T09:01:34.531-07:002013-07-06T09:01:34.531-07:00"That means trying to explain why things are ..."<i>That means trying to explain why things are the way they are. Now a way station towards this quest is figuring out how things are, but this is (or in my view should be) a way station. The big rewards lie with ‘why’ questions.</i>"<br /><br />In the grand scheme of things, I agree with you completely, and in the grand scheme of things, what you say is surely a truism. The goal of the field is to keep asking "why" until we discover the ultimate "because". But we linguists are humans, and we don't, can't, and (I think) <i>shouldn't</i> live in the "grand scheme of things" all the time. For many of us who spend hours and days living in more humble schemes of things, there are very human rewards in answering "how" questions as well. Putting future string-theoreticians aside, this is the same kind of joy I see in undergraduate advisees at MIT in just being part of a lab and "discovering stuff".<br /><br />Furthermore, I think this is good for the field -- in fact, essential! Without semi-organized piles of semi-analyzed, often accidental discoveries in our heads, and without the ability to publish puzzles in advance of their solutions (and still be considered cool), where would the field find the unanswered questions that ultimately lead to the "high explanatory oomph" non-boring theories that yield the "big rewards" in the grand scheme of things?<br /><br />I find it hard to believe you disagree (though feel free), but I thought it might be useful to put forward a slightly more nuanced set of value judgments about linguistic oomphitude before things get too out of hand.David Pesetskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09666557087629655596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-12239753231912975222013-07-06T08:31:49.342-07:002013-07-06T08:31:49.342-07:00Finally we learn how science is to be done accordi...Finally we learn how science is to be done according to Norbert: cowbells are needed! Milka advertisement with happy purple cows providing happy milk comes to mind...<br />[sorry youtube only had this version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpHOEL3sauo ]<br /><br />Joking aside, footnote 1 reveals why Norbert thinks certain questions are interesting and others not. In the Hornsteinian science anything that confirms the theories Norbert believes to be true is interesting, anything that threatens them is boring. But instead of simply stating this fact he piles up trivialities from phil-o-science [presumably to hide it?].<br /><br />Yes, new theories may need nurturing, yes in some cases it might be justified to temporarily ignore seeming counter evidence etc. etc. BUT it does not follow that this can go on for ever. And it does not even address the circularity problem that has befallen Chomskyan linguistics long time ago. Why is that not even mentioned? Which generative linguist, struggling with a particularly difficult problem in syntax, cares what physicists think? [But if physicists need to be dragged into every discussion one should be at least aware that they never had a "Standard Theory" - presumably the Standard Model was meant?]<br /><br />Now for people who believe scientists are not a herd of Milka cows, it may be worthwhile knowing that Dan Everett gets as much attention as he does because his work IS interesting, it has produced unexpected results, and apparently inspired quite a few students to get into linguistics. Here is a review http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001696 discussing the many reasons for why this is interesting work, BESIDES the claims about recursion Norbert finds so infuriating. Readers of this blog who have a scientific [as opposed to bovine] spirit just are well advised to learn a bit more about work Norbert finds uninteresting. And, who knows, trying to challenge some of Everett's proposals might prove more fun than waiting for the next 'language evolution miracle'<br /><br />ReplyDeleteAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03443435257902276459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-34398787396747335722013-07-06T07:45:41.188-07:002013-07-06T07:45:41.188-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03443435257902276459noreply@blogger.com