>
> What do people think of NC's epistemic nativism and 'Cartesian common
> sense'?
>
i am actually confused by the phrase "cartesian commonsense". "i think therefore i am" doesnt seem very commonsense to me (in all of my uncommon foolishness perhaps ;-)) nor does "doubt everything" - today leading scientists oppose science to common sense and is not descartes the father of modern science and its "way"?
i think chomsky is smart in refusing to come up with a theory, since the only things that make sense in this sphere are some general terms and a good set of rules of thumb, but if i were to call this collection a "theory", such as dare i say "pacifism", then i immediately leave myself open to the attacks of those keen on highlighting the incompleteness and inconsistencies of the collection (of rules of thumb) now interpreted as some sort of hard theory.
--ravi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.