home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!FAC.ANU.EDU.AU!ANDALING
- Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@fac.anu.edu.au>
- Message-ID: <9301102203.AA07757@fac.anu.edu.au>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:03:20 EST
- Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET>
- From: Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
- Subject: Re: Generative vs. Explanatory
- Lines: 15
-
- [Avery Andrews 930111.0904]
-
- (Gary Cziko 930110.2106)
-
- >It also appears to me that Chomsky's grammar is also generative but not
- >explanatory since he uses no physiology in his theorizing. Would Avery and
- >Bruce agree with this?
-
- Does this mean that Newton was non-explanatory? If so, yes. But I think
- this goes beyond what many people mean by `explanatory'. What Newton did
- to an extreme degree, and what Chomskyans do to an immensely lesser degree,
- is reduce many apparently disparate facts to fewer common principles,
- & this is all that many people mean by `explanation'.
-
- Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
-