Reverse Debates
« previous post | next post »
From the last year's Foundational Questions Institute conference, a String Theory supporter (Raphael Bousso) is asked to argue against String Theory on behalf of Loop Quantum Gravity, while one of the founders of Loop Quantum Gravity theory (Carlo Rovelli) takes the String Theory side, in opposition to his own point of view:
This works out well, making me wonder about analogous opposite-day debates in linguistics and allied areas.
Maybe Jerry Fodor arguing for a Darwinian approach to language evolution, in opposition to Daniel Dennett explaining that tabula-rasa language learning is just as impossible for genes as it is for neurons?
Or Lera Boroditsky debunking the idea that language determines thought, while Lila Gleitman argues that Whorf was right all along?
Or Dan Everett and Dave Pesetsky taking each other's sides of the argument about recursive compositionality as the essence of language?
No doubt commenters can suggest pairings that are even more unlikely to happen…
John Coleman said,
January 2, 2015 @ 7:09 pm
Didn't we have one some years back, with Ken Church arguing for Nativism, against I can't remember for empiricism?
[(myl) Do you remember when and where? If I was there, my memory is worse than I think. But Ken is certainly someone who would do this — I'll ask him about it…]
Brendan said,
January 3, 2015 @ 12:23 am
Geoff Pullum and the ghost of E.B. White?
BlueLoom said,
January 3, 2015 @ 9:07 am
@ Brendan
Can I buy tickets to see that one?
MattF said,
January 3, 2015 @ 10:06 am
A little esoteric, but how about younger Wittgenstein vs. older Wittgenstein? It's 'linguistic' philosophy, after all. I can imagine a lot of back-and-forth of the form "And what, exactly, does that mean?"
Dan Everett said,
January 3, 2015 @ 10:29 am
Hey, I am happy to do an inverse debate with David P anytime.
Stefano Bertolo said,
January 3, 2015 @ 3:13 pm
this is known as the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test
[(myl) Bousso and Rovelli would both clearly fail that one. But their exchange is rhetorically (and scientifically) interesting all the same.]
J. F. said,
January 3, 2015 @ 4:02 pm
Bryan Caplan vs. Paul Krugman.
Christina B said,
January 3, 2015 @ 4:04 pm
If non-living debaters can be recruited I think an inverse debate between Rene Descartes and Noam Chomsky about "Cartesian Linguistics" would be lovely.
[(myl) I would also like to hear Galileo Galilei on "Galilean Science".]
Christina B said,
January 3, 2015 @ 8:31 pm
And maybe for Plato and Darwin seeing their respective "Problems" through the inverse lens could be therapeutical?
Jason said,
January 3, 2015 @ 8:40 pm
But… it isn't a reverse debate! It merely degenerated into a contest of oleaginousnessness!
Sili said,
January 4, 2015 @ 2:08 am
Any chance we could send Chomsky over to the other side for that debate?
Christina B said,
January 4, 2015 @ 3:26 am
"Any chance we could send Chomsky over to the other side for that debate?" – So he could explain how to falsify him? Splendid idea if anyone can do that he's the man.