Re: [tied] Glen, regarding...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:

> Dear Ned:

....

> <PCR> I am not aware of any scientific study which purports to show

that there are *NO* neurological differences among the various ethnic
groups. Could you point me to one?

[NS] No, but while I rather think the onus would be on you to cite
some which do demonstrate neurological differences between ethnic
groups, that still does not address the fact that experience has
shown that, with or without such differences, language acquisition
does not vary between adoptive children from different groups (or as
others have pointed out non-adopted children from one group raised
among peers from another).

.....

> <PCR> Yes, of course, but the question is really how did the

phonologies get to be so different. Are you proposing random
variation?

[NS] I am not proposing any answer, but lack of a valid explanation
is not justification for adopting a demonstrably false alternative.

> <PCR> Yes, of course. However, there are many physical

characteristics that are variably inherited like tongue size and
mobility, general energy level, size of oral cavity, etc. that
presumably could have an effect on phonology.

[NS] It is not a question of what one presumes could have an effect,
but of the fact that such effects have been empirically demonstrated
to be absent.

...

> <PCR> "use vs. non-use" of what? Phonemes?

[NS] Yes.

....

> >
> > [NS]
> > The overwhelming consensus of researchers, as I ubderstand it, is
> > that no difference in effort is required in language acquisition
> > between natural children or adoptive children, even adoptive

children

> > from other ethnic groups.
> >
> > [PCR] The effort is expended by the correcters.

[NS] I had meant no greater effort was required by either the
children or the parents (or anyone else for that matter)

>
> > In the imperfectly replicating population, obviously, by

definition,

> > newborn infants will not be regularly corrected, and no great

effort

> > will be necessary.
> > >
> >
> > [NS]
> > Under your hypothesis great efforts would be required from them

to

> > acquire the language patterns of their new families, no?
>
> <PCR> No, not what I said or meant.

[NS] Sorry, my misunderstanding. Somehow I had read your statement as
referring to newborn infants from the "Perfectly Replicating
Population" (to put it in your terms) who were adopted by parents
from the "I.R.P." but I guess you were referring to the natural
children of the latter.

> > [PCR]
> > > But the major question, which you do not seem to address, is

why an

> > imperfect replication becomes the norm in a given segment of a
> > population rather than just an "acceptable" variation.
> > > Do you have any ideas on that?
> >
> > [NS] See above.
>
> <PCR> "See above" just does not get it. Until you can answer the

major question, many of us will not be satisfied.

There is a difference between not being satisfied with a proposed
answer and putting forth an alternative answer which flies in the
face of demonstrable fact. And pointing out a post hoc/propter hoc
fallacy in a proposed explanation does require one to come up with a
different explanation.

Regards,
Ned