Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence

From: Peter T. Daniels (grammatim_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:24:22 GMT

Des Small wrote:

> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > SJ wrote:
> > > > > A theory should be able to predict not yet observed pattern in
> > > > > the future observations. If not, it's not science, at least
> > > > > according to
> > > >
> > > > I repeat: why do you think history is a predictive science? What are
> > > > "future observations" of history?
> > > >
> > > > > Karl Popper. Science philosophy based on the Vienna school has been
> > > > > dominant in modern science.
> > > >
> > > > Scientists don't do philosophy of science.
> > >
> > > Except when they do, of course.
> >
> > And when they do, they play the fool.
>
> Except, of course, when they don't - Medawar himself being a case in
> point.

I don't think he consciously set out to Create A Paradigm Shift, as some
foolish scientists have done.

> > > I went to the recent Medawar Lecture, given at Bristol by the
> > > philosopher Peter Lipton, on "The Truth About Science," in which he
> > > remarked that Popper's philosophy of science is very much more popular
> > > with scientists than contemporary philosophers of science.
> >
> > That's like "transformational grammar" being very much more popular with
> > psychologists than with linguists.
>
> Everyone outside linguistics accepts Chomsky's preeminence in the
> discipline. It is so very wearing!

What I meant was, Chomsky himself stopped doing "transformational
grammar" ca. 1970.

> Des
> is protected by the Hoary Hosts of Husserl 

-- 
Peter T. Daniels                       grammatim@att.net
Quantcast