Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!gw1.att.com!nntpa!mac-118.lz.att.com!user
From: rte@elmo.lz.att.com (Ralph T. Edwards)
Subject: Re: Chomksy, Significance, and Current Trends
Message-ID: <rte-1508951516340001@mac-118.lz.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac-118.lz.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
References: <DD18rC.AK0@actrix.gen.nz> <jguy.12.302EB65E@trl.oz.au> <DDAKqG.E9D@actrix.gen.nz> <40q490$bbg@mailnews.kub.nl>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:16:34 GMT
Lines: 42

> One of the first things I was taught in university science classes was
> that to merely criticize a theory was next to useless unless you can
> offer a better theory to replace it. Better can mean provides a better
> coverage of the phenomenon being studied, is consistant with other
> well developed theories, is more intuitively interesting to
> researchers, etc. But to merely point out errors in a theory without
> providing an alternative explanation is not productive science.

Well I would hope the first criterion "describes observable phenomena"
would outweigh the others several-fold.

> 
> From my experience working within generative theory, most researchers
> realize that the theory has many problems. Chomsky has said as much,
> comparing generative theory to pre-Gallilian (sp?) physics.

An interesting admission, especially since most physics classes start
with Galileo.  There isn't much worth teaching before him.

> But, until
> a better theory (as judged by the individual researchers) comes along,
> it's the best game in town. 

> Well, when you present a coherent theory that addresses the issues you
> are complaining about, and which provides a general coverage of the
> languages of the world, then I'll take you seriously. But to simply
> snipe at the theory from the sidelines, without providing alternative
> solutions, does little to nothing to progress the science.
> 
> David LeBlanc
> -- 

Physicists constantly harp on inconsistancies, even when no better
theory is available.  Working out inconsistancies is viewed as an
important path to progress.  In the late 19th century, everything seemed
pretty settled, just a few minor inconstancies, like - why spectral lines
for heavens sakes?  Picking at these scabs led to quantum mechanics.

Science should work all the time.

-- 
R.T.Edwards rte@elmo.att.com 908 576-3031
