"Debunking" itself is kind of silly - the idea that you'd just want to terminate any line of inquiry past some point where the inquirer was "incorrect," according to whatever subjective conditions of "incorrectness" that you're working with, and refuse to acknowledge any statements made past that point. There are spaces where an argument could be made that it's necessary - mathematics, for example - but philosophy? Anyways, I do sympathize with criticisms of GA's lack of respectable epistemic rigor, but the types of institutional structures necessary for such rigor can't be built overnight. There's like, maybe 10 people doing work with Adam's originary grammar right now. That number should begin to change once courses and learning materials get finished and the necessary incentive structures set up for people to learn and do research.
Exactly. Part of the problem is who we direct our audience to. Often these critiques are just in middle-way media platforms, or avante-gaurde journals--whose audience really has no idea or attachment to studies on the origin of language. The closest we got to a great critique (which was more like an addendum) was from the object-animal theory guy that Adam mentioned in his dual-use article. That was interesting. Did you ever read that article Adam wrote about Debrowska and her book? He wrote more there about what GA aims to accomplish, too. I probably should have linked it up there.
Jacobus' ROBA hypothesis was actually very constructive. Whether you agree or disagree with the modifications to the originary hypothesis he suggested (I personally did not), at the very least the points he was bringing up spoke to a need for a much more "dehumanizing" account of the pre-linguistic hominids we have at the originary event. There's a million other things to talk about - I think Adam has even spoke before about how a tool's shape "tells you" how to use it.
Yeah, that was something I wanted to tackle further. There's a group of people who wrangle with theoretical biology, too, i wanted to eventually talk to. I was looking into the Vienna school, I believe its called, and this book they have on emergent evolution and tools; applying the same argument (on a more technical scale) that GA uses for language being an event and non-gradual. (Edit: Sorry, it's "Convergent Evolution in Stone-Tool Technology" is the book name. That was one of the topics id want to include in my GASC presentation.)
"Debunking" itself is kind of silly - the idea that you'd just want to terminate any line of inquiry past some point where the inquirer was "incorrect," according to whatever subjective conditions of "incorrectness" that you're working with, and refuse to acknowledge any statements made past that point. There are spaces where an argument could be made that it's necessary - mathematics, for example - but philosophy? Anyways, I do sympathize with criticisms of GA's lack of respectable epistemic rigor, but the types of institutional structures necessary for such rigor can't be built overnight. There's like, maybe 10 people doing work with Adam's originary grammar right now. That number should begin to change once courses and learning materials get finished and the necessary incentive structures set up for people to learn and do research.
Exactly. Part of the problem is who we direct our audience to. Often these critiques are just in middle-way media platforms, or avante-gaurde journals--whose audience really has no idea or attachment to studies on the origin of language. The closest we got to a great critique (which was more like an addendum) was from the object-animal theory guy that Adam mentioned in his dual-use article. That was interesting. Did you ever read that article Adam wrote about Debrowska and her book? He wrote more there about what GA aims to accomplish, too. I probably should have linked it up there.
I think I found it: https://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap2801/2801katz/
Jacobus' ROBA hypothesis was actually very constructive. Whether you agree or disagree with the modifications to the originary hypothesis he suggested (I personally did not), at the very least the points he was bringing up spoke to a need for a much more "dehumanizing" account of the pre-linguistic hominids we have at the originary event. There's a million other things to talk about - I think Adam has even spoke before about how a tool's shape "tells you" how to use it.
Yeah, that was something I wanted to tackle further. There's a group of people who wrangle with theoretical biology, too, i wanted to eventually talk to. I was looking into the Vienna school, I believe its called, and this book they have on emergent evolution and tools; applying the same argument (on a more technical scale) that GA uses for language being an event and non-gradual. (Edit: Sorry, it's "Convergent Evolution in Stone-Tool Technology" is the book name. That was one of the topics id want to include in my GASC presentation.)