About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
I haven't actually read Peter Gordon's original paper all the way through, so I want to be careful discussing it (partly because the reports I've read about it conflict with each other). My understanding, too, was that his data indicated a one, two, many system. However, he only had 4 subjects.
Last winter, Mike Frank & Ted Gibson at MIT tried to replicate Peter Gordon's data with more subjects (14) using some of the same tasks and some different tasks. Their data indicate a "little," "some," and "many" system instead. My notes from Mike Frank's talk say that he believes there could be other languages that have a similar system but that nobody had tested them the same way Frank & Gibson did.
In any case, both Gordon & Frank seem to agree that the Piraha do not count above the number 2.