tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post8349335407409547067..comments2024-02-12T02:22:30.561-05:00Comments on The Lousy Linguist: debunking chomsky's poverty of the stimulusChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09558846279006287148noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post-10092465100567568672010-10-04T10:32:17.871-04:002010-10-04T10:32:17.871-04:00Using the term "debunking" in regard to ...Using the term "debunking" in regard to a scientific debate as subtle and complex as advancing, refining, or editing the 'poverty of stimulus' hypothesis produces, in me at least, a strong bias against the competence and trustworthiness of the blog as a whole, as does the claim in the post "Why Linguists Should Study Math" that "Math is good training for the mind. It makes you a more rigorous thinker." This claim is, I think (as someone with a fair amount of math), as thoroughly discredited as the similar claim for learning Latin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post-87977328939773388922010-09-20T15:24:09.222-04:002010-09-20T15:24:09.222-04:00In support of the poverty-of-stimulus argument, ch...In support of the poverty-of-stimulus argument, check out Legate and Yang’s “Empirical reassessment of stimulus poverty arguments,” The Linguistic Review 19: 151-162. Also see Charles Gallistel's chapter, Learning Organ, in The Chomsky Notebook.mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16708204556464896118noreply@blogger.com