|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 29, 2012 21:30:01 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 30, 2012 15:46:17 GMT 10
Some scientists, including MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, are skeptical about claims made for great ape language research. I am being cynical by pointing out that their reputations largely depend on language being a uniquely human innate and hard-wired adaptation? It may be interesting to compare the language use of an ape to that of a child having developed to a similar cognitive level to the maximum of the ape's. I expect the child's language use would be similarly lacking in syntax and grammatical finesse.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jul 1, 2012 0:11:48 GMT 10
Unlike the ape, the child has the capacity to further develop.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 1, 2012 3:49:58 GMT 10
I think that was Alan's point. It is our general cognitive capacity rather than some specific and uniquely human language gene which enables us to develop our language skills beyond those demonstrated by apes.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jul 1, 2012 4:55:37 GMT 10
I said it with fewer words.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jul 1, 2012 17:14:23 GMT 10
I said it with fewer words. True. I expect the language skills of apes would be considered age appropriate for average humans with equivalent cognitive development.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jul 1, 2012 17:33:52 GMT 10
Some scientists, including MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, are skeptical about claims made for great ape language research. I am being cynical by pointing out that their reputations largely depend on language being a uniquely human innate and hard-wired adaptation? Evolutionary Psychologists deride their critics as being anti-evolutionists or creationists. However what they present is a very odd account of evolution. It requires us to have evolved with more hardwired specialised instincts than any other animals rather than with powerful organic and general learning capabilities and capacities allowing us to flexibly perform fairly effectively as the highly diverse generalist ominivores we are. Another oddity being how they accuse their critics of denying humans are animals. However they seek to dictate contrived differences between humans and others animals where it suits them. As with their insistance on differences in language skills being a matter kind rather than of degree.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 2, 2012 7:56:42 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jul 2, 2012 9:26:51 GMT 10
|
|