Reflections cont'd (3)

[Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman]

Mark,
People in the related fields of psychology, psycholinguistics, speech and
hearing do it all of the time. Even undergraduates in these fields manage these
research paradigms, execute projects and know exactly what I am talking about.
You simply are not familiar with the literature, and you are calling things
nonsense without reading anything, which is an easy thing to get away with in
linguistics, because of the low scientific standards in our field.
     Linguistics as a field can no longer afford the luxury of remaining
willfully ignorant of research that applies to their theories and their
professional practice, in order to maintain their autonomy in a war over
political turf.  Because this behavior causes us to lose ground scientifically,
and dictates funding priorities of university programs. Eventually, linguistics
programs will lose their standing and credibility, be unfunded or so
underfunded as to lose their autonomy, because of their intellectually and
scientifically backward behavior.
--
Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
Linguistics Department
Institute for Cognitive Science
University of Colorado at Boulder


Quoting "Mark P. Line" <mark at polymathix.com>:

> Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman wrote:
> > You are calling upon concepts and images built and generated by
> > experience.
>
> That's a pretty hard claim to substantiate, isn't it?
>
> In any event, the point is that it doesn't make much sense that perception
> would evolve to work independently of all this magnificent ability to
> construct images of anything on the fly, and that an hypothesis that it
> has done so anyway would be unfalsifiable.
>
> -- Mark
>
> Mark P. Line
> Polymathix
> San Antonio, TX
>
>
>
> > Quoting "Mark P. Line" <mark at polymathix.com>:
> >
> >> Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman wrote:
> >> > "Reality makes language intelligible.""Language makes reality
> >> > intelligible."
> >> > How about Carol Fowler and Direct Realism?
> >>
> >> I can see images in my mind when I hallucinate, and there's no direct
> >> realism involved. I can see images in my mind when I imagine a scene
> >> with
> >> my eyes closed, and there's no direct realism involved. Why would I want
> >> to postulate that there's anything special, much less more direct or
> >> more
> >> realistic, about perception? If direct realists had any *evidence* of
> >> something special, they wouldn't have to postulate it.
>
>