🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:1188993155.516805.122040@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 5, 7:23 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in 
>> messagenews:7onlzv12ejod$.21q9et8hy7e5$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:27:54 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> > <news:1188962874.711693.93360@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
>> > in sci.cognitive,sci.lang,bionet.neuroscience:
>>
>> >> On Sep 4, 5:40 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> >>> The article is at
>> >>> <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&ar...>
>> >>> in the form of 17 scanned pages; there's also a link by
>> >>> which one can download it as a 2.9M .pdf.
>>
>> >>> 'On Chomsky's review of Skinner's _Verbal Behavior_'
>> >>> Reviewed by Kenneth MacCorquodale
>> >>> J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 January; 13(1): 83-99.
>>
>> >> Thank you. Did it look worth reading?
>>
>> > I just skimmed the first few pages, so take anything I say
>> > with a grain of salt, but it seemed to me that one would
>> > have to be familiar with VB to get much out of the review: a
>> > good chunk of MacC's argument appears to be that Chomsky
>> > either didn't understand or misrepresented what Skinner was
>> > actually saying.  I've not read VB (and know damn-all about
>> > behaviorism anyway), so I'm not part of the intended
>> > audience.
>>
>> But have you ever told students that Chomsky demolished Skinner's 
>> position
>> etc.? The intended audience was anyone interested, well, verbal 
>> behavior -
>> what many people would call "language acquisition" and "language" etc. It
>> didn't work out that way of course, and now we have cognitive "science."
>
> Why would a professor of mathematics tell "students" _anything_ about
> these matters?
>
> You seem to be unaware of psycholinguistics, which long predates and
> vastly outperforms "cognitive science."

"Outperforms" in what sense? But since cognitive "science" is a conceptual 
disaster, saying that "psycholinguistics" is better is, well, you get the 
picture. Further, I would be surprised if "psycolinguistics" was not 
influenced by the disaster that was the cognitive "revolution."



>