Topoi 33 (2):373-383 (2014)

Authors
Christina Behme
Mount Saint Vincent University
Abstract
This paper focuses on the linguistic evidence base provided by proponents of conceptualism (e.g., Chomsky) and rational realism (e.g., Katz) and challenges some of the arguments alleging that the evidence allowed by conceptualists is superior to that of rational realists. Three points support this challenge. First, neither conceptualists nor realists are in a position to offer direct evidence. This challenges the conceptualists’ claim that their evidence is inherently superior. Differences between the kinds of available indirect evidence will be discussed. Second, at least some of the empirical evidence provided by the conceptualist is flawed. It is not obtained independently of theoretical commitments, alternative interpretations have not been ruled out, and some of the thought experiments intended to extend the evidence base are conceptually flawed. Third, the widely held assumption that rational realism disallows empirical evidence relevant to linguistics is dubious. It will be shown that the limitation imposed by rational realism concerns strictly formal linguistics. The rationalist realist has no reason to impose any restriction on the evidence relevant to psycholinguistics. I conclude that it is a mistake to dismiss realism based on the assumption that it imposes undue restrictions on evidence that is relevant to linguistics
Keywords Linguistic evidence  Empirical evidence  Direct evidence  Thought experiments as source of evidence  Conceptualism  Rational realism
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11245-013-9171-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,514
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Rules and Representations.Noam A. Chomsky - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (127):1-61.
Rules and Representations.Noam Chomsky - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1):1-15.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Higher Order Evidence.David Christensen - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (1):185-215.
What Evidence Do You Have?Ram Neta - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (1):89-119.
Prediction and Prejudice.Peter Lipton - 1990 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):51 – 65.
No Evidence is False.Clayton Littlejohn - 2013 - Acta Analytica 28 (2):145-159.
Evidence Does Not Equal Knowledge.Aaron Rizzieri - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 153 (2):235-242.
Are Empirical Evidence Claims a Priori?Peter Achinstein - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):447-473.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-08-27

Total views
142 ( #64,167 of 2,348,314 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #510,851 of 2,348,314 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes