Well said, Craig. It astounds me when I read claims that the study of
grammar is not science. Anyone who makes that claim either doesn't know what
science is or doesn't know what grammar is. We all have a "grammar" of our
language in our heads (the collective knowledge and principles that enable
us to speak/comprehend it), and the study of grammar is the effort to
discover and explain what that knowledge and those principles are. Since our
internal grammars are largely unconscious and not directly available to our
conscious minds, we use the same methods of induction, hypothesis-making and
hypothesis-testing that physicists use in attempting to understand and
describe the universe. I use a favorite quotation from Albert Einstein to
introduce discussion on the first day of my introductory linguistics class:

In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to
understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving
hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he
is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be
responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure
his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will
never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism, and he cannot
even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison. (*The
Evolution of Physics*, 1938)

Dick

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>       Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach to
> expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with other
> interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and subfields.
> One person cannot simply declare himself right; positions are subject to
> peer review.
>     Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as
> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the opposite--a good
> scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps especially his/her
> own. Even when evidence seems overwhelming, as it is for evolution and
> global warming, a good scientist presents those as the best current
> explanation of the evidence, not as a final and definitive answer. This may
> seem wimpy to some, but it is a cornerstone of what good science is all
> about.
>     When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within the
> academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the Literature in
> some form or another. Those who propose the new way of seeing things are
> under the obligation to show that they have reviewed the current literature
> and understand it before they offer something new. That doesn't mean
> presenting the weaknesses of that view, but presenting its strengths. The
> burden, as it should be, is not on the status quo position, but on the
> person who is proposing the new view to explain why it better accounts for
> the observed facts.
>     I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the list, I find
> discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I think it's
> important to assert ground rules that can make it possible for us to discuss
> issues in a useful way.
>     It is  helpful to know what most experts currently believe about a
> topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack.
>
> Craig
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/