/lit/ - Literature

>>9865382
It'd really show you don't talk about what you know if you say pic related is an adequate depiction of what language is. You might as well study dog bones to call yourself a dog expert.

>All I know is his linguistic theorizing is tied to specific empirical phenomena.
Empirical phenomena don't exist on their own. They're not a magical gift that falls on your lap and you can wield to be correct about things. What you're talking about is a result of human activity.

I don't even find anything horribly wrong with what he says, but that's because it seems Chomsky would do anything to not be wrong, and not because he's positing something that must be posited.

But hey, this is par for the course with science. Can't expect the imaginative manchildren to actually be responsible for what they do. Make nukes, make viruses, make machines and AIs that obsolete life, it doesn't matter, so long as you're right. So long as you're not the one pushing the button, you're not to blame.

>>9855062