Re: OFF-TOPIC: Non linguistics books by Chomsky

Thomas R. Wier scripsit:

> > If these theoretical positions are being promoted for less than
> > purely scientifically motivated reasons,
>
> While I agree with your posting in general, I think it's worth noting that
> the reasons why people believe scientific theories are strictly irrelevant
> to their truth. Physics and biology do not stand or fall on the questions
> of whether Newton was a nut and Mendel a fraudster.
That's right, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.  I was trying
to say (probably clumsily) that when it comes to our wanting to know
what to believe, when we don't know much about the details of the
argument, we should be suspicious of why people have nonscientific
motivations, and look closer at less popular but alternative analyses
to see why they might have been rejected.  It is, in other words, a
question of the practical ways we go about informing ourselves, rather
than the principle on which a given theory is founded.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier	       "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics    because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago   half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street     Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637