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

[Michel]

Was an excellent article on this in Harper's, I think last or current 
month, written by -surprise, surprise- Tom Wolfe.

---
Michel

On 2016-09-12 13:59, Keith Davis wrote:
> 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
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l