><Gerry here: Just repeating what I said in the earlier post: do you think
it's time that we combine the ideas of Piaget and Chomsky? And it's OK if
you don't.
><Marc: No, I don't think so. Chomsky: IMO you best forget all he said.
Piaget: IMO it's very difficult stuff of uncertain relevance.
>Gerry: What you are saying Marc is quite peculiar, IMO. Should the works
of both scholars be thrown out because the concepts are so difficult? Then
what reasons do/did Chomsky and Piaget have for the continuation of their
pursuits? What about your work with Elaine? Several folks have come along
who disagree with both of you. Perhaps the reasons for disagreement is
because your concepts are too difficult. Should the Aquatic Ape theory be
dissolved simply because it's too difficult for narrow minded thinkers to
comprehend? Or should the dissenters of yours wait until you die and then
claim the theory (plus others you champion throughout your life) should be
abandoned for lack of relevance? If that's what you believe, then what
drives you to promote the AAT and to make such a personal effort to answer
your emails? Always curious, Gerry
AAT is not difficult (even I can understand it). AAT is a logical sequence
of Darwinism: humans are no exception among mammals, their anatomy &
physiology follow the comparative evidence --very consistently. But these
new insights are "too" new for a lot of paleo-anthropologists, who can't
throw away their old concepts. Now, AAT (or better: the consistent
comparative approach, of which AAT is only a part) gives new insights in a
lot of what were "problems", in this case: language origins, brain size,
etc. Both Chomsky & Piaget are/were unaware of the importance of the
comparative approach. IMO, pre-AAT vs AAT is like the physics of the old
Greeks vs the physics of Newton. The old Greeks had their own merits, but if
you want to learn physics you don't have to study the old Greek physics. I
don't say there's nothing interesting in what Piaget said, but I think we
can make more progress by using biological & evolutionary concepts in
linguistics, neurology & psychology. (Chomsky should not be studied at all
IMO. You can better read what people like Greenberg & Comrie & Dik have to
say.)
Marc