|
Post by brandt on Jan 29, 2012 9:59:33 GMT 10
Of course language is not exclusive to humans. I am not sure what that would have to do with the discussion. Chimpanzees are not humans. It was Dr. Chomsky that offered the LAD was it not? Language is acquired and not learned in the way that you or I would learn to play chess. A good analogy would be computers, sure we can have the machine "speak" from recordings or sophisticated programming. If language is simply social learning we would have to wait a lot longer to be able to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 29, 2012 10:27:44 GMT 10
Of course language is not exclusive to humans. I am not sure what that would have to do with the discussion. Then why raise it? If language is simply social learning we would have to wait a lot longer to be able to speak. Would we? Among humans it already takes a long time, compared with other animals. The Bishop goes on to the human eye, asking rhetorically, and with the implication that there is no answer, 'How could an organ so complex evolve?' This is not an argument, it is simply an affirmation of incredulity
Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Jan 29, 2012 14:35:53 GMT 10
"anatomically unable to utter human speech"
They really cannot frame to pronounce it.
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Jan 29, 2012 14:45:00 GMT 10
"Among humans it already takes a long time, compared with other animals."
Normally a year before saying one word.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jan 29, 2012 17:33:41 GMT 10
In general, evolutionary psychology (as an approach) does not fall for the false dichotomy of nature vs. nuture but takes into account the dynamic interaction of the two. Approach. Is that a weasel word? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 29, 2012 20:23:56 GMT 10
I had similar thoughts (e.g., prevarication). Evolutionary psychology is an approach to psychology... It is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social behavior. It is a way of thinking about psychology... Does this mean EP does not profess to be a scientific discipline? If not, then what is its academic standing?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 30, 2012 2:18:26 GMT 10
It was not I that brought up Chimpanzees and language.
It certainly does take us a long time to acquire language but comparisons to other animals has been shown to be fruitless has it not?
Before the point is crossed in which snide remarks about "weasel words" and suggestions of prevarications fall to direct attacks I have one small question or two.
1. Why is there such a negative reaction to any suggestion that our bodies have something to do with our behavior?
2. Does this forum represent a level playing field in which the rules are applied equally to all?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 30, 2012 10:16:41 GMT 10
It was not I that brought up Chimpanzees and language.
It certainly does take us a long time to acquire language but comparisons to other animals has been shown to be fruitless has it not? You raised the subject of language in Reply #18, as an instance of the “dynamic interaction” between nature and nurture. This response simply begged the question: To demonstrate this point I raised the example (Reply #19) of human communication being taught to great apes: Clearly apes did not genetically evolve with this capacity, so why should it be assumed we did? You then stated (Reply #21), “If language is simply social learning we would have to wait a lot longer to be able to speak.” To which I responded (Reply #22) saying, “Would we? Among humans it already takes a long time, compared with other animals.” I suggest these were fair points to raise in the context of the discussion. Before the point is crossed in which snide remarks about "weasel words" and suggestions of prevarications fall to direct attacks I have one small question or two.
1. Why is there such a negative reaction to any suggestion that our bodies have something to do with our behavior? Because there appears to be little if anything to distinguish Evolutionary Psychology from agenda driven pseudosciences such as eugenics and sociobiology. I have nothing against the suggestion that our bodies have something to do with our behaviour. However, it is you who bears the burden of proof in demonstrating this in an innate (genetic), psychological sense, especially how it explains differences between groups of humans. If, in saying there is a “dynamic interaction” between nature and nurture, you agree on the importance of nurture then you need to state what the nature component is that is interacting with social learning in a given instance. Moreover where you suggest our bodies have something to do with our behaviour, you seem to vacillate between our brain and our general anatomy. If the brain, please give us examples that go beyond the possibilities of development or atrophy of sites from respective use or lack thereof. If our general anatomy, please give an example which goes beyond our motor and sensory homunculi (learned mind maps). For instance, one may rightly say that in grasping objects our behaviour is influenced by our having an opposable grip. However the obvious question is whether or not this behaviour is innate or, indeed, if it ultimately derives from our psychology? If congenitally we had no thumbs, I suggest our behaviour would “naturally” differ. If we lost our thumbs after becoming used to them, our behaviour is likely to eventually adapt. With technology (spanners, forklifts, etc.) our behaviours in gripping objects memetically alter.
|
|
|
Post by Solomon on Jan 30, 2012 10:23:48 GMT 10
2. Does this forum represent a level playing field in which the rules are applied equally to all? Brethren all,
There is only one absolute rule: I, as the forum owner, reserve the right to do as I please. My intention is to be a benevolent dictator and I simply call on all members to please observe the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Please note: I am especially averse to the use of intellectual dishonesty, particularly instances involving personal attacks. Some other aversions are foul language; "outing" members who choose to remain anonymous; unsubstantiated criticisms of particular Jurisdictions and Obediences; and needless or unjustified negative references to other forums.
Where breaches occur, my intention is to publicly remind members of these guidelines and to privately warn by PM those who contravene them. I do not intend to ban members or delete their accounts except in the case of repeated or extreme breaches.
Given that membership of this forum is subject to acceptance based on reputation, I am hoping these guidelines will be followed without too many reminders. If you feel there is an instance where this rule has been unequally applied please let me know either publicly or by PM. BTW, I do not believe the use of the term "weasel word" constituted a snide remark, given that "snide" suggests insinuation and the meaning was clearly spelt out in the link Smithee provided.
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Jan 30, 2012 11:59:21 GMT 10
"weasel word" and "prevarication"
There are less direct words but I think they are still alright if used in the right place.
|
|