Replies

I am a physcist with degrees from the top 10. I view linguistics as a sound objective field of inquiry. Linguists pose valid hypotheses which are capable of proof through the assembly and analysis of empirical data. And I think it is a lot more rigorous than the social sciences. For instance, grammar within a particular language and melieu is pretty much fixed, varying little from person to person. Except among the ill-educated, for instance, there is little statistical about the rule of subject-verb agreement as to number and person.

Among your arguments you have resorted to putting words in the mouths of others and then beating them over the head for it - a cheap liberal trick. You have resorted to namecalling - another cheap liberal trick. And you have smeared them with false facts - another cheap liberal trick.

I find the question of how the structure of language reflects the organization of the brain to be a fascinating endeavour. I would hope that you do to - or are you one who has no curiosity about the world?

Except among the ill-educated, for instance, there is little statistical about the rule of subject-verb agreement as to number and person.

Except that Chomsky predicts that these kinds of rules are embedded in the mind and do not need to be explicitly learned.

My, my. I always love it when a poster trots out his list of virtual degrees on a discussion forum. I'm supposed to be blown away by your CV?

Linguistics is mildly interesting, but of limited application. Sort of like theoretical physics--if there was an eager need for this knowledge there wouldn't be such a glut of unemployed PhDs. As for being linguistics being rigorous, that's only is in comparison to the other social sciences, which themselves verge on seances and astrology.