what's some academic literature that's as engaging and require as little background as this?
Methods of Logic by Willard van Orman Quine
>>7336245
Reminder that Chomsky constantly attacks other thinkers for not being scientific enough despite his most famous theory never ever being discovered or any evidence of it being found
>>7336258
you probably don't acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as a real phenomenon either
>>7336262
>he doesn't immediately suck Chomsky's cock
>hurrr he's a dumb Republican
Fantastic critical thinking skills
>>7336262
Is that supposed to be an insult?
>>7336258
good reminder i guess. can you recommend a book as i asked though?
>>7336245
Several popsci books by physicists like Hawking's stuff, the more recent books on string theory, and Infeld and Einsteins' Evolution of Physics.
>>7336272
excellent question, kudos.
>>7336279
i don't think popsci books qualify as academic literature
>>7336276
Google.com by Steve Zuckerberg
>>7336279
>>7336300
yes, i could go to scholar.google.com, but i don't know which material is engaging and understandable for a layman
>>7336258
There's actually abundant evidence for UG, if that's what you're referencing.
>>7336324
No, there REALLY IS NOT.
>>7336324
>there's abundant evidence for UG
KEK
>>7336321
Type into the search bar "philosophy for idiots .pdf
>>7336336
are you having a bad day? is this the usual mood here? i don't lurk this board
nate silver's book is pop science, but it's better pop science than most pop science and you'll feel smart reading it
>>7336361
>instead of providing evidence retreat into ad hominem
Chomsky sure gave you a good grounding I'm logic eh
>>7336375
Well a trivial example you'll find just about everywhere in the acquisition literature is the ability of children to interpret long-range wh-dependencies without evidence that these structures are possible in their language. There's also the fact that any speech error a child makes that isn't a processing error is explainable by means of incremental adjustments of a universal weighed constrain ranking. One example of this the felicity of certain scope violations in non-English languages that are found in the early speech of English speaking children
>>7336440
That's not evidence
>>7336440
universal grammar is like psychoanalysis: every case study can be interpreted to fit the model theory.
>>7336459
>Results gained from painstaking empirical study over the course of decades and published in peer reviewed journals not evidence
>foucault.jpg
I don't think you know anything about linguistics. I think you hate Chomsky for independent reasons. I think you once overheard someone shit talk UG and decided to add this belief to your Chomsky hate because that would be the easy, most satisfying thing to do.
I like Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. This one >>7336369 isn't bad either, and covers some similar ground (as does Taleb's pop-sci/pop-stats work).
>>7336477
Its evidence that the idea has merit which is completely different from evidence that actually proves or even removes reasonable doubt. People also thought weed killed brain cells for years because of research which gave that idea merit
>>7336488
My original comment was that there's abundant evidence for UG, I never said it was 'proven'. If 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' is your criteria for science, then I suppose you don't get out of the math department much.
>>7336258
>>7336271
>>7336329
>>7336333
>>7336375
>>7336464
>>7336488
There are people who seriously think they can attack Chomskys political work by attacking his scientific work
That this is a valid case to make
That this doesn't make them look like desperate hacks trying to distract
>>7336258
You're nothing but a Zizek shill.
