<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[A Blog Around The Clock]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://blog.coturnix.org]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Bora Zivkovic]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://blog.coturnix.org/author/coturnix/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Pinker and Lakoff]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Apparently, there is a big debate between <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-search.cgi?Template=combinedSearch&amp;search=lakoff&amp;x=0&amp;y=0" target="_blank" title="">Pinker and Lakoff</a> going on.  Both of new Lakoff&#8217;s books are still on my <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html/002-8299259-6621600?%5Fencoding=UTF8&amp;type=wishlist&amp;id=3DNSVSG93QJK5" target="_blank" title="" />wish list</a>, i.e., I have not read them yet and I have been out of the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=49&amp;search=lakoff" target="_blank" title="">Lakoffian loop</a> for a while &#8211; too much other stuff is vying for my attention these days.<br />
But I have read the two articles, kindly provided by Razib <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2006/10/pinker_vs_lakoff.php" target="_blank" title="">here</a> and my first impression was: &#8220;Pinker&#8217;s article is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces of writing I&#8217;ve seen from a cognitive scientist&#8221;<br />
Interestingly, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/10/pinker_v_lakoff.php" target="_blank" title="">Chris</a> had the opposite response:</p>
<blockquote><p>Lakoff&#8217;s reply is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces of writing I&#8217;ve seen from a cognitive scientist</p></blockquote>
<p>Who&#8217;s to tell?!  Perhaps I am so strongly biased <b>against</b> Pinker that I will defend Lakoff even when Lakoff is wrong, assuming that Pinker MUST be wronger?</p>
]]></html></oembed>