Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 452.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: Stephen Ramsay <sjr3a@busa.village.virginia.edu> (15)
Subject: Pinker
[2] From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu> (40)
Subject: Re: the real and usefully false
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:44:38 +0000
From: Stephen Ramsay <sjr3a@busa.village.virginia.edu>
Subject: Pinker
Willard,
I think that when it comes to Pinker, it's much more than the exigencies
of writing for a non-specialist audience. Even when he's writing to
specialists (of which I fancy myself one), he still ends up saying that
the thermostat is a conscious being. :)
> Yesterday I encountered this astonishing passage in Steven Pinker's new
> book, Words and rules: The ingredients of language (London: Weidenfield and
> Nicolson, 1999):
Stephen Ramsay
Senior Programmer
Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities
Alderman Library, University of Virginia
phone: (804) 924-6011
email: sjr3a@virginia.edu
web: http://www.iath.virginia.edu/
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:45:43 +0000
From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: the real and usefully false
Willard,
In your recent remarks on Pinker's book, Words and rules: The ingredients of
langauge, you criticize him not clearly stating that he is describing a
MODEL of
langauge usage and not the mechanisms underlying language. Or as you stated:
>
> The basic problem, it seems to me, is not that he might deceive someone
> into thinking that we actually had discovered what happens when we make
> sentences (as opposed to coming up with a useful, even powerful way of
> thinking about how we make sentences). That is a problem, and surely some
> will be thus deceived, and it would have been a simple matter to prevent by
> putting in a qualifying phrase here and there.
I am sure all the easily deceived people appreciate the efforts of this list to
keep them from being lead astray. ;-) What I am uncertain about is how much
effort we should devote to qualifying every positive statement about our
research as a model, hypothesis, etc. Trained specialists in any discipline
know
some issues are uncertain or complex and evaluate them as such. As a lay reader
of the latest advances in astrophysics for example, I assume that some of the
statements are probably not as certain as they might sound. But knowing it is a
lay treatment I realize that it cannot present every possible caveat or caution
and yet hold the interest of a lay audience. (Pinker could answer your direct
criticism by inserting model every 3 or 4th paragraph but that is not your real
objection to the work.)
> But the bigger problem is
> his success-orientated way of thinking, the drive toward solutions at the
> expense of better questions -- a drive that is perhaps responsible for the
> omission I object to? Perhaps, as a result of his work and that of others
> we'll have a really fine linguistic processor that benefits us in all sorts
> of ways, but scholarship, understanding won't be as well served.
I am not sure what you are describing as the "success-oriented way of thinking,
the drive toward solutions at the expense of better questions...." Perhaps you
could give examples of "success-oriented way(s) of thinking" versue "better
questions." I am sure we all have what we consider to be "better questions" but
how can I agree or disagree with your assessment unless I know what "better
questions" are at stake?
Patrick
-- Patrick Durusau Society of Biblical Literature pdurusau@emory.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 07:01:17 CUT