DD, And when we depart from scientific method, we get into the area of belief. I'm not embarrassed to acknowledge that I find a cognitive approach more believable than an innatist approach, but we're a long ways from being able to treat that issue scientifically. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of DD Farms Sent: 2008-12-08 15:31 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct) At 09:44 PM 12/7/2008, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: . . . >I tend, as I've said before, to disagree with post-generative >grammarians on innateness and to lean more towards Geoffrey >Sampson's arguments in his book Educating Eve, but even Sampson >acknowledged that while he had developed a strong rationale for a >cognitive-based grammar there was no proof either way. These are >not hypotheses that are in any way rigorous enough to be falsified. . . . DD: Goodness gracious. There are people on this list that understand scientific theory. I agree! Make the possible to be falsified hypothesis and check out if it can be. { AND report back to the community of your results.} 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/ 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/