A philosopher saying that something's not up for debate? I must be dreaming.
Skinner and Chomsky both came up with some ideas about language acquisition that were useful and stimulated subsequent research. They are both quite wrong, in the sense that neither theory withstands the scrutiny of research over the past 50 years in anthropology, psychology, and [computational] linguistics.
Pinker is one of the more prominent critics of Chomsky, who also points out the value of some of his ideas.
In stark contrast, Darwin's theory remains largely intact, with some modifications and additional insights. It's been magnificently confirmed by discoveries in genetics, of which Darwin could have known nothing. Darwin was right and created a successful theory that will live forever, even as it's added to and enhanced. We have nothing like that for a theory of language acquisition, neither from Chomsky, Skinner, nor anyone else, yet. On the whole Chomsky was not more right than Skinner in any ultimately significant way.
Sorry for misapprehending what you were getting at with evolution of language. I think the idea that human language changes over time is not unfamiliar.
> Could we generally agree that language is instinctual and follows formal or formalalizable rules
No, not without some evidence.
----
> First in it's immediate dismissal of any formalism inherent in natural language
That's not what Dijkstra's article is saying.
> the ease at which he dismisses the proposition without any real consideration
Dijkstra provides several paragraphs of clarification. IMHO, these do provide useful context and show the reader why he has the opinion that he does (of course, we may just disagree here -- but that's okay). What do you feel is missing?
> This subject should be under the purview of analytic philosophy and linguistics, not mathematics or computer science.
Why?
> To say differently is literally, demonstrably false.
Why? Can you demonstrate that, or point to a source that does?
> Many people in this thread are talking about the inability of plebes to express what they actually want. This is a fair point, but not a problem with language specifically.
Why not?
> Graduate of analytic philosophy
Possible appeal to authority.
> This is not up for debate
Why not?
> it's easily provable.
Then please prove it, or point to something else that does so.
> I could site dozens of linguists, Pinker immediately comes to mind offhand.
Then please do so, and please be more specific than just giving us "Pinker". The more specific you can be, the more useful the citation is. I (and presumably others here) are not familiar with his work.
Skinner and Chomsky both came up with some ideas about language acquisition that were useful and stimulated subsequent research. They are both quite wrong, in the sense that neither theory withstands the scrutiny of research over the past 50 years in anthropology, psychology, and [computational] linguistics. Pinker is one of the more prominent critics of Chomsky, who also points out the value of some of his ideas.
In stark contrast, Darwin's theory remains largely intact, with some modifications and additional insights. It's been magnificently confirmed by discoveries in genetics, of which Darwin could have known nothing. Darwin was right and created a successful theory that will live forever, even as it's added to and enhanced. We have nothing like that for a theory of language acquisition, neither from Chomsky, Skinner, nor anyone else, yet. On the whole Chomsky was not more right than Skinner in any ultimately significant way.
Sorry for misapprehending what you were getting at with evolution of language. I think the idea that human language changes over time is not unfamiliar.