RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3220Goal: $6000

The categories, they do nothing!

Jump to: navigation, search

A cognitive linguistics paper just for you.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)16:37, 2 March 2012

I thought I just made this shit "cognitive linguistics" up...

Scarlet A.pngmoral16:42, 2 March 2012

Heh, nope, you would be a tenured prof in a linguistics or psych department if you had. "Cognitive linguistics" itself is a problematic term because it usually means "the branch of psycholinguistics that became George Lakoff's personality cult" rather than the more obvious meaning of "the application of cognitive psychology to linguistics."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)16:57, 2 March 2012

I can see that the subtle differences there could cause confusion.

Scarlet A.pngsshole16:59, 2 March 2012

It's not really so subtle at all if you're familiar with the history of the fields, though. It's sort of like how "evolutionary psychology" often doesn't mean "psychology done from an evolutionary perspective," but "selfish gene + Cosmides and Tooby."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:09, 2 March 2012

The "subtle" was sarcastic. :P

Scarlet A.pnggnostic17:16, 2 March 2012

Sorry, forgot to turn my detector on this morning.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:20, 2 March 2012

I'll get a sign.

Scarlet A.pngmoral23:22, 2 March 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sometimes I just want to roll the clock back a couple of years to before I stumbled head first into fuzziness. Things were just so much better.

Scarlet A.pngtheist11:24, 5 March 2012

Too late, you have already unasked the question.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:35, 5 March 2012

Sometimes, academics ask questions that defeat the purpose of the intent of the underscored themes. This whole discussion on Categories by Danziger, creates a non "day to day life and use of language" and imposes, instead, this artificial construct of what catigories SHOULD do, and therefore why they are imperfect and imprecise. But what she wants them to do, and what they actually do do are two totally different things.

Her work on "language space and culture (1998)" just makes me wonder why she wants to prove her thesis, rather than wants to work with the proof she has to MAKE a thesis.

Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci18:15, 5 March 2012