Chomsky's computational approach to LA (and thus, to HN) debunked?

[Keith Davis]

That's a great quote, and could easily be applied in lots of areas...

Www.innergroovemusic.com

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 7:08 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As Chomsky was developing his computational theories, he was
> simultaneously proposing that they were rooted in human biology. In
> the second half of the 20th century, it was becoming ever clearer that
> our unique evolutionary history was responsible for many aspects of
> our unique human psychology, and so the theory resonated on that level
> as well. His universal grammar was put forward as an innate component
> of the human mind—and it promised to reveal the deep biological
> underpinnings of the world’s 6,000-plus human languages. The most
> powerful, not to mention the most beautiful, theories in science
> reveal hidden unity underneath surface diversity, and so this theory
> held immediate appeal.
> 
> But evidence has overtaken Chomsky’s theory, which has been inching
> toward a slow death for years. It is dying so slowly because, as
> physicist Max Planck once noted, older scholars tend to hang on to the
> old ways: “Science progresses one funeral at a time.”
> 
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l