Chomsky

dddd
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/10/fodor_on_natural_selection.php Chomsky did this by arguing that biology (indeed chemistry and physics) might/would/should adapt to psychology/linguistics and not vice versa. Fodor argued that "levels" of science needn't reduce at all (a position currently very popular in philosophy of science); so psychological explanations need not be consistent with biological explanations. It's interesting that his arguments here appear to rely on movement between the supposed "levels" of scientific explanation.

adsf
http://masonmade.com/my_blog/page_4.html

http://masonmade.com/blog/my_conversation_with_noam_chomsky.html

"..He's become sort of infamous for supposedly saying that language does not seem to be a product of natural selection, or that there's no evidence that human language is a product of natural selection...."

"..Chomsky also pointed out how there's basically no evidence for natural selection of human language, because we don't have recordings from back then, or fossils showing soft tissue, so we can't really say much about it. He said that most scientists observe organisms' traits and seeing how they're well fitted to their environments and lifestyles and then make the leap to assuming that natural selection is responsible for this...."

Mujin wrote: > backspace  wrote in > 2. Since his initial expression of doubt, Chomsky has changed his position > several times. In light of recent discoveries in human neurobiology and > neurolinguistics, Chomsky is no longer expressing doubt - in fact he is > actively exploring the possible evolutionay history of language. See this > paper from 2002: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5598/1569 > NEUROSCIENCE:

You are quoting from a peer reviewed journal dated 2007. Below I am quoting from a blog post date April 2007. For Chomsky to get past the secular priests guarding their citadel of materialism he can't exactly hand in a paper with the title: Natural selection is linguistic gargoyle. If we read between the lines from Fodor, Prof. Skell to Chomsky they are basically saying that NS is a semantic impossibility. Remember what happened to Popper, the materialist gestapo went after an old man until he "repented". Like all people Chomsky is human, he is probably afraid of the materialist tigers on the prowl ready to disembowel anybody who threatens their materialist superstitions. YEC like me and materialists have to play by the same rules of language. Language comes first and then everything else wether YEC, ID or materialism.

http://masonmade.com/blog/my_conversation_with_noam_chomsky.html

"..He's become sort of infamous for supposedly saying that language does not seem to be a product of natural selection, or that there's no evidence that human language is a product of natural selection...."

"..Chomsky also pointed out how there's basically no evidence for natural selection of human language, because we don't have recordings from back then, or fossils showing soft tissue, so we can't really say much about it. He said that most scientists observe organisms' traits and seeing how they're well fitted to their environments and lifestyles and then make the leap to assuming that natural selection is responsible for this...."

"...I asked him whether I understood correctly, that his criticisms of people inferring that language is a product of natural selection also apply to pretty much any trait of any organism. He said that's right. Then I asked him whether he thought that most researchers, when they talk about natural selection having effects, are being sloppy. He said, "extremely sloppy..."

selection all about survival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f19fbfb9b97835d1/3d03a29174f87f38#3d03a29174f87f38 UC  wrote: > Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_earth_wager

Several reasons. One, and he acknowledged this until the end of his life, Darwin got priority. Second, he held a much more restricted view of evolution than Darwin - selection was all about survival. Darwin recognised that it was what we now clal fitness - reproductive payoffs - that counted. Third, he moved to become a spiritualist because he couldn't account for human intelligence purely by the action of selection, which was all that he thought was active in evolution. Finally, his social position as the son of a worker meant that he had less access to scientific reputation than Darwin did.

Links
* http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1750951 * AppealToAbstractAuthorityAneverEndingFallacyByMaterialists