zlacker

There is a difference between supporting one research paradigm over another and rejecting science altogether to focus on engineering. The first quote and the context around it implies the latter.

The success of naval vessels shows it’s possible to navigate without innate star and wind comprehension, so maybe we should think of that inner stuff as phlogiston. (Yeah, this analogy isn’t as nice but it’s quite hard to translate the nuance of linguistic debate into nautical terms.)

>>Ludwig+(OP)
Do you not genuinely not understand the logic of the argument? The fact that A does Y using Z doesn't entail that B does Y using Z.

>>sudden+8c1
I genuinely don’t understand how the analogy about naval vessels is a fair simplification of the argument that Chomsky’s research programme is, heuristically, a dead-end and should be abandoned. What is A,B,Y,Z?

It’s not like it’s an outrageous position. Chomsky’s tradition is quite controversial and is outside of mainstream nowadays. And connectionism is a valid scientific approach.