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
    The problem of language acquisition goes beyond general p... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The problem of language acquisition goes beyond general problems about induction

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There are specific ways in which language acquisition differs from general inductive learning
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These differences are not accounted for by Cowie's objection that all induction outstrips the data
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's naturalized epistemology treats language acquisition as continuous with general empirical learning via reinforcement and analogy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The apparent gap between linguistic input and grammatical output can be closed by appeal to domain-general statistical learning mechanisms documented in cognitive science.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If domain-general mechanisms suffice to explain acquisition, positing language-specific inductive problems introduces explanatory entities beyond necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cowie's argument in 'What's Within' demonstrates that the poverty of stimulus applies equally to non-linguistic concept acquisition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If underdetermination is a general feature of all inductive learning, the purported uniqueness of language acquisition is illusory rather than principled.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    SkepticismPhilosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Cowie's argument in 'What's Within' demonstrates that the poverty of stimulus ap...If domain-general mechanisms suffice to explain acquisition, positing language-s...If underdetermination is a general feature of all inductive learning, the purpor...Quine's naturalized epistemology treats language acquisition as continuous with ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The apparent gap between linguistic input and grammatical output can be closed b...There are specific ways in which language acquisition differs from general induc...These differences are not accounted for by Cowie's objection that all induction ...

    Similar

    Going beyond the available data is a general feature of induction, not...82%The problem of induction is a central philosophical issue81%Hume's problem of induction is the problem of grounding the transition...80%If going beyond the data in language acquisition argued for innate lan...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: concepts
    View source passageHide passage
    Not surprisingly, many philosophers have questioned Chomsky’s position. The ensuing debate has helped to sharpen the crucial arguments and the extent to which nativist models should continue to command their central place in linguistic theory. (On the empiricist side, see Cowie 1999, Prinz 2002, and Sampson 2005; on the nativist side, see Laurence & Margolis 2001 and Pietroski & Crain 2012; see also the entry innateness and language and the entry philosophy of linguistics). For insta
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit