Wolfe sounds ridiculous.https://twitter.com/sjriches/status/774893705589301248 …
-
-
Replying to @PhiloNatural
@sjriches@guardian@bilingualsolver chomsky IS ridiculous though http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_MB_FEAT …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
Big difference between Wolfe on Darwin and Chomsky & this article (which I'm unsure about).
@sjriches@guardian@bilingualsolver1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhiloNatural @sjriches and
you're unsure that chomsky is wrong about language!? This has been know for a while
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I don't think it has, at least, not on this side of the fence. Though I may be wrong.
@sjriches@guardian@bilingualsolver1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest
That which divides philosophers & scientists. Border might be better. Fence seems too rigid.
@sjriches@guardian@bilingualsolver1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhiloNatural @sjriches and
sure but last time I checked linguistics was trying to be a sci oh ok who am I kidding
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @PhiloNatural and
no but seriously psych linguistics is trying so hard to distance itself from this
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @PhiloNatural and
I'm sure you'll discover this on your reading travels. You could even have a twitter poll
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I'm sure you'll see a sharp divide between experimentalists and chomskians etc etc
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.