On: On Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Lea...

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

People who dismiss an entire field of science as useless invariably know little to nothing about the field, I've found.

Whenever I feel like doing that I try to go read some on the field instead. Usually I find applications I didn't know about.

[AlbertCory → mtlmtlmtlmtl]

tell us about all these applications we didn't know about!

You know, the ones that'll translate 40+ human languages into (vaguely) readable English or vice versa. Give us the URL.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl → AlbertCory]

Do you actually think Linguistics is only about language translation?

[AlbertCory → mtlmtlmtlmtl]

> Do you actually think...

No, I don't, but a working translation is proof that the theory does understand human language as it's actually used.

Or in this case, that it doesn't.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl → AlbertCory]

And is it your view that not having the field's equivalent of a theory of everything makes that field useless and without applications?

[AlbertCory → mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Nice strawman.

My view is: if you have a theory, it should be falsifiable.

If your "theory" isn't, then it's a religion.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl → AlbertCory]

Fascinating. Is linguistics a religion, in your view?

[AlbertCory → mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Maybe try saying something original, instead of putting words in my mouth.