I disagree- I think pawnson's comments are continually and relentlessly negative, they demonstrate clear bias and lack of objectivity. He may try and retreat and claim to be "promoting discussion" or whatever, but this is lame - he exposes himself as a pedant- the sort of irritating geek who heckles good speakers at a conference to indulge their ego and inflated self importance
Also I checked his papers and even read some (actually two) written together with Jackendoff et all. To my mind, they're not very convincingly refute Chomsky et all.
Moreover, his really scientific (technically speaking) books are are :
- Learnability and Cognition - Language Learnability and Language Development
But I didn't hear about any breakthrough either in psychology or in linguistics.
I don't want to sound cantankerous again but I think youtubers overestimate him too highly.
@pawsoned I think youtubers, most of them, are not consumers of technical linguistics literature but rather appreciate Pinker as a popular science writer.
At 3:00 the interviewer addresses the most important question that exposes Pinker's hypocrisy. Haw can he call himself an experimental psychologist when he writes purely theoretical books which leave experiments in abeyance
@pawsoned I'm not so sure that Pinker is being hypocritical here. He IS an experimental psychologist... just pubmed search Pinker S, and you will find more than 50 peer-reviewed publications with his authorship. Also, his books are not purely theoretical; they sum up the general principles of a variety of fields. Many of these principles are arrived at empirically rather than theoretically. He also admits that he's "higher up the food chain," data-wise, for this next book on violence.
@laborwage True I admit that 'hypocritical' was too strong. For my defense I can say that all my bloody-minded comments were provoking discussion such as we're now having. (I hope you're not angry. Sorry, if you are))
But you must admit that there are few and far between Pinker's own actual experiments (I counted no more than two give or take) in his books so why call him experimental psychologist or scientist?
@pawsoned Because he IS an experimental psychologist and a scientist. He is that as well as a popular science book writer. It is possible to be both. Noam Chomsky is a good example, although his books were not so much popular science as unpopular politics. ;) Richard Dawkins was a Zoologist before turning his attention to popular science. And Pinker is still publishing in linguistics, with his last publication (2011) published in the journal Science.
@labo All right I'm willing to agree with you. But the fact is he stopped writing technical books for so-called popular science and uses his qualifications for his spiels (like how do we curse) which are not in any way strictly speaking scientific. That is my objection.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that he's a fake scientist, but that he's a lapsed one. And really if you read his last books (i.e. The Stuff.., Words and Rules) you won't find much facts apart from dull semantic hairsplitting
@pawsoned I think his talks on swearing are informed by science, but yes, are a little less rigorous than his formal work. And no, I have not read the two books you mention, so I cannot comment.
@laborwage But Chomsky achieved a brilliant breakthrough in linguistics. It's a pity that he stopped writing, but he had his innings, whereas Pinker so far hasn't achieved comparable scientific success. (As far as I know his two technical books haven't as yet discover anything new - like Chomsky's universally acclaimed Universal Grammar theory). Maybe I'm unjustifiably selling Pinker short, but I feel like speaking up (antithesis) for Pinker's uncritically dumb psychophantic praises on YouTube.
@pawsoned I don't think Pinker's work in linguistics can be compared to the Chomsky revolution, that it true. And Chomsky did not stop writing, he simply stopped writing on Linguistics. And certainly some Pinker fans are dumb and accept everything he says. But why insult Pinker? You could simply point out what he says (in the videos, preferably, since many people do not have the relevant texts you quote) and critique its validity directly, without references to Pinker's character!
why nigger is considered an offence if a white person uses it and is not an offence when a black person uses it? black people call each other nigger quite often but if a white person calls a black person nigger it is automatically thought of as a grave insult?
9:13
win
braydenbeautiful 7 months ago
I disagree- I think pawnson's comments are continually and relentlessly negative, they demonstrate clear bias and lack of objectivity. He may try and retreat and claim to be "promoting discussion" or whatever, but this is lame - he exposes himself as a pedant- the sort of irritating geek who heckles good speakers at a conference to indulge their ego and inflated self importance
mutbutyt 8 months ago
Also I checked his papers and even read some (actually two) written together with Jackendoff et all. To my mind, they're not very convincingly refute Chomsky et all.
Moreover, his really scientific (technically speaking) books are are :
- Learnability and Cognition - Language Learnability and Language Development
But I didn't hear about any breakthrough either in psychology or in linguistics.
I don't want to sound cantankerous again but I think youtubers overestimate him too highly.
pawsoned 11 months ago
@pawsoned I think youtubers, most of them, are not consumers of technical linguistics literature but rather appreciate Pinker as a popular science writer.
laborwage 11 months ago
@laborwage I think they uncritically swallow every stupid word he says
pawsoned 11 months ago
At 3:00 the interviewer addresses the most important question that exposes Pinker's hypocrisy. Haw can he call himself an experimental psychologist when he writes purely theoretical books which leave experiments in abeyance
pawsoned 1 year ago
@pawsoned I'm not so sure that Pinker is being hypocritical here. He IS an experimental psychologist... just pubmed search Pinker S, and you will find more than 50 peer-reviewed publications with his authorship. Also, his books are not purely theoretical; they sum up the general principles of a variety of fields. Many of these principles are arrived at empirically rather than theoretically. He also admits that he's "higher up the food chain," data-wise, for this next book on violence.
laborwage 11 months ago
@laborwage True I admit that 'hypocritical' was too strong. For my defense I can say that all my bloody-minded comments were provoking discussion such as we're now having. (I hope you're not angry. Sorry, if you are))
But you must admit that there are few and far between Pinker's own actual experiments (I counted no more than two give or take) in his books so why call him experimental psychologist or scientist?
pawsoned 11 months ago
@pawsoned Because he IS an experimental psychologist and a scientist. He is that as well as a popular science book writer. It is possible to be both. Noam Chomsky is a good example, although his books were not so much popular science as unpopular politics. ;) Richard Dawkins was a Zoologist before turning his attention to popular science. And Pinker is still publishing in linguistics, with his last publication (2011) published in the journal Science.
laborwage 11 months ago
@labo All right I'm willing to agree with you. But the fact is he stopped writing technical books for so-called popular science and uses his qualifications for his spiels (like how do we curse) which are not in any way strictly speaking scientific. That is my objection.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that he's a fake scientist, but that he's a lapsed one. And really if you read his last books (i.e. The Stuff.., Words and Rules) you won't find much facts apart from dull semantic hairsplitting
pawsoned 11 months ago
@pawsoned I think his talks on swearing are informed by science, but yes, are a little less rigorous than his formal work. And no, I have not read the two books you mention, so I cannot comment.
laborwage 11 months ago
@laborwage But Chomsky achieved a brilliant breakthrough in linguistics. It's a pity that he stopped writing, but he had his innings, whereas Pinker so far hasn't achieved comparable scientific success. (As far as I know his two technical books haven't as yet discover anything new - like Chomsky's universally acclaimed Universal Grammar theory). Maybe I'm unjustifiably selling Pinker short, but I feel like speaking up (antithesis) for Pinker's uncritically dumb psychophantic praises on YouTube.
pawsoned 11 months ago
@pawsoned I don't think Pinker's work in linguistics can be compared to the Chomsky revolution, that it true. And Chomsky did not stop writing, he simply stopped writing on Linguistics. And certainly some Pinker fans are dumb and accept everything he says. But why insult Pinker? You could simply point out what he says (in the videos, preferably, since many people do not have the relevant texts you quote) and critique its validity directly, without references to Pinker's character!
laborwage 11 months ago
@laborwage I'm trying not to insult Pinker - I respect him.
When exactly I insulted him personally? Do you mean the word 'schmuck' - that was tongue-in-cheek.
I admited that it was rude and apologized. I promise I won't do that again :-)
pawsoned 11 months ago
@pawsoned Hahaha yeah I think it does incite controversy, and it did work in that regard, but perhaps it is a little rude... no big deal, I think.
laborwage 11 months ago
why nigger is considered an offence if a white person uses it and is not an offence when a black person uses it? black people call each other nigger quite often but if a white person calls a black person nigger it is automatically thought of as a grave insult?
Julviano 1 year ago
Maudit tabarnak! LOL
jeanfou1 1 year ago