If you ask linguists like Noam Chomsky, they have all sorts of magical grammar devices they've dreamt up and think are part of our "innate biology" explaining how children (and adults) learn language, despite that none of them know a thing about neuroscience, genetics, or any form of biology and there's no hard science supporting any of …
If you ask linguists like Noam Chomsky, they have all sorts of magical grammar devices they've dreamt up and think are part of our "innate biology" explaining how children (and adults) learn language, despite that none of them know a thing about neuroscience, genetics, or any form of biology and there's no hard science supporting any of their beliefs whatsoever. Such matters fall under fields like those, not linguistics or philology, but for some reason those in the soft sciences are always eager to give their opinion on subjects like biology.
Never trust linguists, most who ever did anything of scientific, cultural, or political merit—rather than abuse Latin they can't understand, like the whole linguistic lexicon; mostly all gibberish like that of other modern scientists, with 20th century and later Latin making their intellectually plebeian nature obvious to anyone who can read the classical kind—were actually philologists, and that one is studied now and not the other is suspect with the reasons obvious: one focuses on ancient languages, comparative and historical linguistics, etymology and literature; the other focuses on what is mostly semantics and non- or ascientific gobbledigook.
I looked up Natalie Wexler and she has a JD and MA (juris doctor and master of arts). If she wanted education to be more scientific she should have studied science instead, and that she went for two degrees and chose not to shows her real priorities, as well as that her real interest in science is as a true disciple of it (i.e in scientism, not science itself), which is also obvious from her use of weasel word clichés like "experts agree" sure to make both the general public and any worthwhile scientists cringe.
Never disregard yourself for having a "non-expert" opinion, most "experts" are like her and only masquerading as such in things they have no more expertise in than anyone else. Someone who's really an expert with true expertise and intelligence—not only credentials—won't need to tell you they are one, nor will they feel a need to demonstrate their inferiority complex by putting you down or disregarding questions, thoughts, or truths for a lack of credentials.
If you ask linguists like Noam Chomsky, they have all sorts of magical grammar devices they've dreamt up and think are part of our "innate biology" explaining how children (and adults) learn language, despite that none of them know a thing about neuroscience, genetics, or any form of biology and there's no hard science supporting any of their beliefs whatsoever. Such matters fall under fields like those, not linguistics or philology, but for some reason those in the soft sciences are always eager to give their opinion on subjects like biology.
Never trust linguists, most who ever did anything of scientific, cultural, or political merit—rather than abuse Latin they can't understand, like the whole linguistic lexicon; mostly all gibberish like that of other modern scientists, with 20th century and later Latin making their intellectually plebeian nature obvious to anyone who can read the classical kind—were actually philologists, and that one is studied now and not the other is suspect with the reasons obvious: one focuses on ancient languages, comparative and historical linguistics, etymology and literature; the other focuses on what is mostly semantics and non- or ascientific gobbledigook.
I looked up Natalie Wexler and she has a JD and MA (juris doctor and master of arts). If she wanted education to be more scientific she should have studied science instead, and that she went for two degrees and chose not to shows her real priorities, as well as that her real interest in science is as a true disciple of it (i.e in scientism, not science itself), which is also obvious from her use of weasel word clichés like "experts agree" sure to make both the general public and any worthwhile scientists cringe.
Never disregard yourself for having a "non-expert" opinion, most "experts" are like her and only masquerading as such in things they have no more expertise in than anyone else. Someone who's really an expert with true expertise and intelligence—not only credentials—won't need to tell you they are one, nor will they feel a need to demonstrate their inferiority complex by putting you down or disregarding questions, thoughts, or truths for a lack of credentials.
This is a decent take.
I must say, your first two paragraphs were each a big run-on sentence; I love semicolons as well, but I know when to end the sentence.
That’s for sure.