Reply to comment

As always, I am surprised, impressed, and enlightened by the range and depth of opinions proffered by, like myself, non-specialist, 'exploring' complex subject matter. I am persuaded that a sincere, reflective, and educated approach to relevant issues, grounded in an "examined life," has much to contribute to scholarly research. I am of the opinion that a friendly, purposeful, and systematic exchange between researchers and intelligent layman can often result in a better and more complete understanding of the issues at hand. I would like to think that this forum could provide that kind of benefit.

Operating outside of a discipline, as a layman, is fraught with sometimes embarrassing results. Naturally, even specialist, in any given field, can blunder. Therefore, do not deny the potential genius that can arise from a sincere and bode expression, potentially arising from direct insight, and innate understanding. As well, seek always to learn, and grow from misconceptions, and misperceptions.

Now, reflecting upon the "purpose" of evolution, and language acquisition, I am of the opinion that such is a function of survival. I believe, intuitively, that language arose from an inherent need to survive, and the acquisition of language was a necessary byproduct of that need. There perhaps arose a need to communicate and differentiate between various kinds of dangers, survival skills, editable plant identification, forging tool, and so forth. Why do I suggest as much, as the purpose of evolution, and language acquisition. Because those 'very same' abilities and skills are the very definition of modern life and its' survival.

I do not believe we have to venture vary far to answer questions that arguably lie within the evolutionary product of our common human ancestry. Why should we assume that the thread that connects us is materially different, and serves a distinct purpose?

Science, and its' methods are the outcome of our intellectual history, and has produced amazing results, in terms of products, and our ability to evaluate, observe, and speculate. Still, it is only one method for arriving at an understanding of complex issues or questions.

I am not denying or questioning the absolute need for science and its' methods. I am merely indicating the need for and validity of introspection, reflection, and insight, that is grounded in life experience, and a genuine education. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity was not the result of pure science, but thought experiments, coupled with established scientific knowledge, thus according validity to introspection. I argue that in certain instances, where pure science cannot presently approach in a meaningful way, introspection, observation, intuition, insight, self-knowledge, and common sense may suffice. Moreover, pure science cannot answer many issues and question offered for consideration. Why? Because they lie outside of scientific inspection. I do not question the effort. What I do question is the absolute belief that science will eventually, and of necessity, answer all of the issues and questions it approaches.

Language, communication, and their evolutionary connection/s do not lie within the exclusive domain of scientific understanding. If that were the case, we would have well-defined and well-established models to work from. As far as I am concern, one might ask, in a similar vain, how does the brain work, in its' multifarious operations. There is no principle, concept, or understanding that assure science that research will eventually answer all related questions.