3-436msg3.txt

运用贝叶斯网编的一个识别垃圾邮件的程序

Subject: innateness

i should n't get involve , but here go : joe stemberger < stemberger % ellvax @ vx . ac . umn . edu > write > > one last statement implicit in much work in linguistics : " i have no theory > of genetics , ontogeny , or evolutionary biology , but i ' m sure that if i do , > modern linguistic assumption about innateness would fit in real well . " i do n't have my copy of " the origin of specy " here , so i can't give a real quote , but the above line remind me forcefully of a problem early evolutionary biologist face , one which darwin be painfully aware of . darwin have no " theory of genetics , " and in fact the then current idea of genetics make precisely the wrong prediction for evolution . ( it be think that a new trait would simply be blend in with already exist trait , instead of remain a discreet inheritable trait . ) it be n't until mendel 's work on heredity be rediscover ( in the 1930 's , if i recall correctly ) that the theory of evolution have a way of explain why newly develop trait be not lose in a population like a single water drop would be lose in the ocean . the history of science be full of new theory that appear to have fatal flaw , but the theory be accept anyway , in faith that an explanation will turn up later . ( another example be the idea that the planet revolve around the sun in space , rather than be attach to crystal sphere that rotate around the earth . what on earth : - ) hold them in their orbit ? ) stemberger also write : > i ' ve never understand why it make any difference at all to linguistic > theory whether highly language-specific information be innate or not . > > ye , it make a lot of difference for e . g . language acquisition , but that 's > beyond the scope of what most linguist do . it 's not consider essential > to study the acquisition of warlpirus before you study the adult grammar , > most linguist study only adult grammar , and the main principle of grammar > have come from study of adult grammar . it make no difference if you ' re simply write grammar that attempt to be descriptively adequate ( in the sense of " descriptive adequacy " that chomsky write about in aspect ) . but it 's not clear to me that that be really a theory of anything . if , on the other hand , you want an explanatorily adequate theory of linguistics , you need to worry about how the learner come up with the right rule . after all , no linguist , even the most brilliant , have ever come up with a descriptively adequate grammar of any language ; wherea every child ( down to some limit at the level of retard child , i guess ) come up with a way of produce and understand his / her language in a descriptively adequate way . regardless of what you believe as to whether the child produce a descriptively adequate grammar , there be a great mystery here . if linguist have n't study child acquisition ( they have , but stemberger be use a slight hyperbole here ) , it 's simply because they have make a decision about how to investigate the problem , not because they do n't thing that 's the real problem . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * mike maxwell phone : ( 704 ) 843-6369 jaars internet : maxwell @ jaar . sil . org box 248 waxhaw , nc 28173