Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3013 talk.philosophy.misc:1783 sci.lang:3829
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!cogsci!zhang
From: zhang@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jiajie Zhang)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Categorization: Lakoff's mistake.
Message-ID: <681@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>
Date: 6 Jan 89 06:47:11 GMT
Organization: Institute for Cognitive Science, UC San Diego
Lines: 41



In article <2897@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
} From article <671@cogsci.ucsd.EDU}, by zhang@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jiajie Zhang):
} "[paraphrasing G. Lakoff] 
} "  (a) Formal-system view of language assumes that (i) language is
} "      independent of the rest of cognition, that is, language is a separate
} "      modular system independent of the rest of cognition, and (ii)
} "      categories are classical (that is, can be characterized by distinctive
} "      features so that formal operations can be possible).
} 
} Isn't this a straw man (or men)?  What do formal systems have to do with
} modules?  Take, for instance, Montague grammar.  Where is there any
} assumption made about language being a module separate from the rest of
} cognition?  (Answer: nowhere.)  Where are categories assumed to be
} classical?  (Nowhere.)  What do distinctive features have to do with the
} possibility of formal operations?  (Nothing.)
} 
} This stuff is just an unwarranted slander against formalism.
...

However, 

In article <2935@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu}, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
} 
} My attempt to defend formal systems from Jiajie Zhang's onslaught was
} not intended to be critical of George Lakoff's book, Women, Fire &
} Dangerous Things.  I should have made it clear that I was commenting
} only on what Zhang wrote.

In the first article, Greg Lee acknowledged that what I wrote was just
a paraphrase of one of the arguments George Lakoff made in his book.
In the second article, however, Greg Lee denied what he acknowledged
in the first article.  

This would be a perfect example of nonmonotonic reasoning if Greg Lee
could show us the evidence which made his belief system changed and
how this system changed.  This kind of evidence or justification is
important for the kind of nonmonotonic system like TMS, which may or
may not be enjoyed by proponents of pure formalism, depending on how
formalism is defined.