🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 6, 5:12 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews: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."

Psycholinguistics has been around for well over 50 years. (Leopold's
child language diaries are from the 1930s, IIRC. Copies were kicking
around usedbook stores in Chicago for years, but I was never
interested enough to acquire a set.) CogSci certainly hasn't.