[Mamzelle]

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.

[AndyJackson]

Actually, there isn't such a glut of unemployed PhDs as you imagine. Second, I am just pointing out, since you wish to debunk linguistics as a serious field of study, that some people in serious fields of study view it otherwise

Much of the linguistics that I have read is every bit as rigorous as the experimental physics research that I am familiar with.

And while I am an experimental physicist, your ignorance about physics is showing as well.

[Theo]

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? ...

Isn't that exactly what the author of this article did? I agree with your argument, Mamzelle, that propping one's argument up with a reference to one's degrees is weak.

[theFIRMbss]

> Linguistics is mildly interesting, but of limited application.

Yikes! This in a place
where Ayn Rand is respected...
Language is a tool

of cognition. Thought
is language! Understanding
linguistics can help

understand thinking.
Can anything have a more
broad application?!