Dear people,
On his blog of
Amritas.com at
http://www.amritas.com/030322.htm#03182325 , this article's author, Marc Miyake, came up with a linguistic argument concerning Noam Chomsky's deep structures. It has a lot of strange symbols on it that pertain to linguistics.
Above that (meaning later in the day), at
http://www.amritas.com/030322.htm#03202136 , he also posted the following remarks:
"Toren Smith of The Safety Valve read my 'Carnie-val' entry [the one with the strange symbols --ultimate_robber_baron] and sent me this letter:
" 'Good god almighty.
" 'Haven't these people ever heard of "Occam's Razor"...?
" 'Talk about circumnavigating the globe to see what's behind you.'
"Actually, Toren, the Chomskyans have heard of Occam's Razor (which can be described as the 'keep it simple principle'*). In fact, ironically the appeal of Chomskyanism lies in its 'elegance' (note the quotes). The term has a special meaning for them that makes little sense to lesser mortals like me. Chomsky's pupil Carnie describes his theory of VSO (verb-subject-object) languages as "elegant" (2002: 200). Chomskyans delight in transforming the 'surface' diversity of languages into a simplistic unity that cannot be perceived by the senses. Deep down inside (though none can ever verify this with their eyes or ears), all languages are the same. But are they? Or is this just a lazy way of avoiding the complexity of reality by retreating into an imaginary world?** [See the ** note on the bottom --ultimate_robber_baron]
"At least those who circumnavigate the globe are still on this planet. Chomskyans take a road out of this world and into another realm that only they can see through the blinders of their faith - a realm that has little to do with what is actually behind language. Unfortunately, their journeys to utopia (a place that doesn't exist) are expensive, and we taxpayers are footing the bill. People have based their entire careers on SIEs (silent, invisible entities). They are not about to let anyone deflate their ballooning empires of hot air. Moreover, many outside the field take them seriously. Hence the hostility aimed at me here and elsewhere.
"One commenter, Joyce Milton, author of
The Road to Malpsychia, wrote:
" 'I loved this piece [my "Pariah against a Prophet"]. But in fact, some professors have indeed posited the existence of an inborn "universal religion." This is humanistic psychology, a strain of the currently popular evolutionary biology approach. Abe Maslow called this "universal religion" the "religion of human nature." Its content is roughly equivalent to left-wing, 60s-style progressivism, with "inclusivity" being the highest value that trumps all others. Spirituality is relegated to the private sphere (New Age nostrums) while social values are defined by "revolutionary" social science. See my book The Road to Malpsychia. Miyake's critique that this ivory tower parochialism masquerading under the banner of universality is right on the money.'
"I have not read her book and cannot judge its claims. And praise from a non-linguist may not mean much. Still, does it really take a professional to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes? 'Sorry, kid. Come back when you have a degree.' 'But ... but ...!'
" *or as "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate". Translation and explanation at Skepdic.com.
" **I am not denying the possibility of universal principles of language. The search for such principles long predates Chomsky. The question is whether Chomskyan methodology helps or hinders the quest for universals. Chomskyans may ask good questions, but their a priori, anti-data approach prevents them from finding answers grounded in reality."
So that's Miyake's latest word on this. What do you think?
Dear everyone,
This debate has spilled over onto a sixth website. (The first five are: this site, Marc Miyake's,
Front Page Magazine, "Gene Expression," and Lucianne.com .)
Anyway, a blog titled
Insolvent Republic of Blogistan by one Justin Slotman at
http://slotman.blogspot.com/ has been following this debate as well. It says:
"I DO SO LOVE THE BLOGS: So I love the Jason Malloy response to a Marc Miyake article [Jason Malloy is the 'Gene Expression' guy I mentioned earlier --ultimate_robber_baron]
, and when I go to Amritas [Marc Miyake's website]
to get a follow-up I don't get one but I do get further criticism of the Scientist-Gnome [nickname for Noam Chomsky].
I'm not informed enough by a long ways to judge how right either guy is; Marc is clearly deep in the Chomsky hate, but he can back up what he says with actual linguistic knowledge -- which impresses me
, anyway. But I do think Chomsky is going to wind up being closer to the Freud of his field than the Darwin; you know, paradigm-altering, dead wrong about a lot of things, and ceaselessly entertaining. (Chomsky not so entertaining to me as Freud, but others find him entertaining, I understand.) Not someone they keep going back to years after the fact like biologists still do with Chuck Darwin."
I don't know if Justin Slotman is here right now, but if he is, I'd like to tell him that I like his coverage. =)