Yet having said that, I wonder whether Pinker is as successful as the enthusiastic reviews claim. Two kinds of comments, recurrent themes, as it were, suggest this. One criticismis that he presents speculation as fact. I can find not one example in 430 pages. One of thepleasures of reading this book (and it's a rare pleasure these days!) is Pinker's extremely careful use of language and his great care in weighing evidence, pointing out what is fragmentaryand inconclusive but suggestive, and in telling us where he is speculating outright (as in chaps.11 & 13). Why some reviewers misread so badly is related, I believe, to the second kind of objection.
Many complain that Pinker is "dismissive" of other points of view, that he is "undulyslanted," that he has an "agenda." These criticisms are meaningless in this context. Pinker is ascientist, and a scientist who temporizes and makes nothing but conditional statements is notwriting science; he is publishing before he is sure of his data and has thought-through hisconclusions; he would in fact not be published. Read Darwin's "Origin of Species." It's "slanted"? You bet, and it certainly has an "agenda"! But at the same time these complaints aredeeply revealing about our present-day culture. One of Pinker's main points is that anall-pervasive extreme relativism has come to permeate our discourse at all levels. Here itmanifests itself , in science, where it is entirely inappropriate: as the usual PC dogmas "Don'tconfront! Never dismiss! Somebody might be offended!" That way madness lies. That some reviewersfailed to see that these kinds of responses were precisely what he is arguing against suggeststhat he may not have succeeded fully.
Finally, and briefly, one reviewer DOES attempt to confrontPinker on his own grounds, by suggesting that the adequacy of any theory can be tested by posing counterexamples. The problem is that his own examples counter nothing Pinker says. The first isimpossible: "Yes, he's." Simply try to SAY that and the impossibility of that contraction is clear. One expects a completer (here; there; guilty, etc.). The second strains credulity: Anyonewho is impolite enough to answer my phone call with a rude "Who's it?" produces instant confusionand a slamming hang-up. Unless . . . suppose the answerer is not in his office at the college butat home with an unlisted number. Then the likelihood is that the caller is friend, family, anintimate who recognizes this as a deliberately humorous, idiosyncratic, "in" way of saying "Hello," much as we use the words "whosis" and "whatsis" in informal situations. But these areintelligible ONLY because the standard, uncontracted forms are known in the first place.
Pinker's book is a powerful and important piece of work. Among other things, it arguessubtly for the return of reasoned judgment to our everything-goes public discourse.
Prof. Pinker has written over 400pages to prove that human language is a product of an "instinct," an inborn wiring of the humanbrain. Time and again he refers to the design of the mind and the commonality of that design as it outcrops in human language everywhere. He extols the incredible language power of the humaninfant as proof of pre-born hard wiring. He even describes the extreme unlikelihood that suchlanguage faculties could occur by accident.
Then he rather furiously re-pledges his allegiance to the dogma of evolution. And to me he sounds desperate and silly in the process.
Hisevolutionary musings sound half-hearted and are even less well-argued. The scientist is standingon the streets of the capital of an ancient empire, looking around at complex structures stillstanding on paved roads, and saying, "no, I don't see any evidence of intelligent designhere."
Prof. Pinker's book offers loads of evidence of intelligent design == creation == and thentries to ignore the evidence because, well, gee whiz, what would the other scientists say?
Checkout pages 354-362 (hardback) to see logical muddling of the worst sort. The theory of evolutionfound lip service but no evidentiary support in this book.
I liked the book and recommend it toanyone interested in the subject of language -- it's really fun to read. For those interested in the question of human origins, the book is an avowed evolutionist's guide to the breathtakingwonder of creation.