i hope this makes sense, it's late at night and im hella tired but i really hope this won't turn into a heated argument/defenses. like i said, i don't see what constitutes your conclusions here.

I really don't think that I could explain it in a way that's sufficiently informative for you to be able to make a judgment. Basically, Chomsky is the most prestigious target in what is a surprisingly competitive field of scientific inquiry. He's a meticulous researcher. If you're able to chip away at his work, it's instant fame. This guy made the claim of being able to basically wipe away Chomsky's central idea, which is also the "law of the land" in linguistics. So that alone should make you skeptical. But when you look into this guy's work, it's basically not a challenge to universal grammar at all. The basic concept of universal grammar is that grammar is innate, inborn and exclusive to an organism. That's virtually a truism. Just like how a human embryo cannot grow up to become a cow: it has genetic information pertaining to a human organism.

Maybe he's not someone who attacked Chomsky for the purpose of seeking attention. Who knows. We can't know what's inside his head. But what he says about having disproven universal grammar just isn't true even if his research is 100% valid. There is some doubt about even that considering there is no one to verify it. As for why I am suspicious of him having an impure motive: you just sort of have to follow the field of linguistics to be able to grasp what sort of a world it is. I can't really explain it any further than that. You have to educate yourself, if you are genuinely interested in this sort of stuff, and then draw your own conclusions.

you preposterous fucking turd
 
source(s): me, just now

I don't get what I ever did to deserve such hostility from you??? Yeah I made ONE post saying basically "go educate yourself", is that enough for you to draw conclusions about how I conduct arguments when I'm seriously interested in having them? I mean, have you ever watched topics in which I did take the time to actually substantiate things I've said? Have you ever read the posts I've made on Reddit?

This is just pointless, unnecessary hostility and I'm actually kind of surprised that it came from you because I've never even seen you like that, and I surely don't think I deserved it.

I mean, fine: I can explain what universal grammar is and why it's incorrect for him to insinuate that he has disproven it, but I can't explain why I think he was just doing it for purposes of notoriety. That's a suspicion and I admit I can't fully substantiate that. But that's just sort of what I've come to think about the field. It's a surprisingly cutthroat business. And the greatest prize of all is being able to take down old Chomsky. So that's what people aim for. Maybe I was being glib in my response to you but it really just is a matter of immersing yourself in not just the literature but in the goings-on of the field.

if dada was really just trying to suggest a better background in linguistics before "weighing in" on some article then i apologise but i really, really don't think there was anything about those posts to give a reason to treat them in good faith or as anything other than condescending garbage.

It did bother me a little bit that bonzi was all "I'm calling this bullshit unless you substantiate yourself". He could've asked for clarification, and I would've given it without the drama. But if you're going to disbelieve me, well, that doesn't immediately make me want to defend my position, particularly since you really do need a good knowledge of how the field operates to be able to make a substantive judgment.

This kind of reminds me of how feminists just don't explain things to people who don't know the most elementary things about feminist theory or literature but still actively believe it's all a giant scam designed to put women in charge of the universe. Only you can decide who you want to have a discussion with. If someone asks you for more information, you give it to them, but if they disbelieve you that doesn't mean they're entitled to more information by default.

I honestly don't think I was being condescending to him! Bonzi's my buddy too. But you're right. I should've just said what I posted just now right away.

smooth

yes thank you I thought so too

back on topic