Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Abstract concepts required by grammatical rules must be innately represented in the mind

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Connectionist and statistical learning systems demonstrably acquire hierarchical, abstract linguistic representations without pre-specified symbolic rules (Elman 1990).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The poverty of the stimulus argument conflates the underdetermination of explicit rules by data with the impossibility of implicit generalization from distributional patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If abstract grammatical concepts can emerge from learned weight configurations in neural networks, P5's restriction of empiricist mechanisms to surface regularities is empirically falsified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations entail that no fact about a mind determines that it follows one rule rather than another, undermining the claim that rules are 'represented' at all (Philosophical Investigations §201).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If psychological reality of grammar does not require explicit symbolic representation of rules, P2's classical assumption breaks the inference chain from grammar to innate abstract concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Grammars and rules governing knowledge domains are psychologically real
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the Classical view is correct, psychologically real rules are present in the mind as symbolic constructions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Linguistic grammars involve abstract concepts that are not perceptually available in the data
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.