Enron #2

1. How does a Special-Purpose Entity (S.P.E.) work? Why does the "partnership" giving money to your company make a big difference?

An S.P.E. is a partnership between two or more companies (outside investors), and a bank will be much more likely to supply a large loan to parternerships rather than to a single company. The partnership then giving you all the money makes a big difference because it did not have to be recorded in the company's balance sheet and"a company could raise capital without increasing its indebtedness."

2. How did Enron pit "twists into the S.P.E. game?" What does it mean that Enron "didn't always put blue-chip assets into the partnerships"? What was problematic about Enron using its own executives to manage the S.P.E? What was Enron's guarantee?

Enron pit "twists into the SPE game by  "not always put[ting] blue-chip assets into the partnerships—like oil leases that would reliably generate income. It sometimes sold off less than sterling assets..." aka, Enron wasn't contributing its' equal share to the paretnership. Enron usuing it's own executives to manage the SPE was problematic because "the company would make the deals work—that is, get the partnerships and the banks to play along—by guaranteeing that, if whatever they had to sell declined in value, Enron would make up the difference with its own stock." The company effectively sold parts of itself to itself, which is a waste of time and money.

3. How did the world come to learn of Enron's use of S.P.E.'s? Is Gladwell correct in claiming that this is another example of a mystery? Explain. 

"The public became aware of the nature of these S.P.E.s through the reporting of several of Weil's colleagues at the Wall Street Journal..." Gladwell is correct in claiming that this is another example of mystery because it is not straightforward information, but information gleaned through slowly trying to untangle the tangled web that Skilling wove.

4. What is the difference between "scrounged up" and "downloaded?"

There is no difference. They mean the same thing in this context, and "scrounged up" is simply slang for "download."

5. Why does Gladwell claim that "It scarcely would have helped investors if Enron had made all three million pages public."? Explain what Gladwell means when he says, "But here the rules seem different." Who is Andrew Fastow?

Gladwell claims that it wouldn't have helped investors if Enron had made all 3 million pages public because it was so much paperwork that it would be unlikely that a team of individuals could read all the pages and understand everything on them, in a reasonable amount of time (relative to why they would need to read the pages). When he says "But here the rules seem different," he is showing how Enron is a mystery because as the more information in found and provided, the harder it becomes to narrow down a clear-cut conclusion. Andrew Fastow was "Enron's chief financial officer, [and he] didn't understand the full economic implications of the deals, either, and he was the one who put them together."

6. Why has the "Disclosure Paradigm" become an anachronism?

The "Disclosure Paradigm" has become an anachronism, in the case of Enron at least, because it seems to have become unnecessary for a company to inform the public about its business, at least as much as it used to.

  
7. Why did treating the German secret weapon as a mystery prove to be more useful? Specifically, how did the "propaganda analysts" (the batty geniuses) use reason to uncover the Nazi V-1 Rocket?

Treating the German secret weapon as a mystery was proved to be more useful because the individuals who cam up with the information were able to do so freely, by listening to open -air broadcasts, and using the information given to them instead of seeking out the information, which could have gotten them killed. The "batty" genii would listen specifically for plans the Nazi's had that they might accidentally reveal, to the unknowing public.

8. How has diagnosing Prostate Cancer transformed from a puzzle to a mystery?

diagnosing prostate cancer has transformed from a puzzle to a mystery, because, once upon a time, a doctor could do a simple exam to determine whether or not a patient had cancer. If the puzzle pieces fit, the patient would have prostate cancer. Now, instead of waiting for the signs of prostate cancer to appear, doctors take precautions, such as monitioring PSA ("a substance associated with prostate changes"), ultrasounding problematic concentrated areas of PSA, and sometimes doing a biopsy of the spot, However, none of the tests are definitive, and the only way to be sure is to have been tested for it directly, like when it was a puzzle.

9. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, how has "the situation facing the intelligence community has turned upside down?"

"The situation facing the intelligence community has turned upside down" because "now most of the world is open, not closed." Now, all the details are available for perusal, where as before the collapse of the U.S.S.R., general behavior was "predictable," but the details were not know.

10. How does Admiral Bobby R. Inman believe the U.S. should strengthen the U.S. intelligence system? Why was his answer seen as unusual?

 Admiral Inman believed that the US should strengthen their intelligence by "reviv[ing] the State Department," His answer was unusual because it was "the one part of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment that isn't considered to be in the intelligence business at all." 

11. Gladwell writes: In a post-Cold War world of "openly available information," Inman said, "what you need are observers with language ability, with understanding of the religions, cultures of the countries they're observing." Inman thought we needed fewer spies and more slightly batty geniuses. 

Does this curriculum sound familiar?

This curriculum does sound familar, in fact it sounds just like the IB. In the IB, students are taught to explore and expand their thoughts particularly on the subject of religion, and cultures in countries all over the world, which may be studied at any one time.

Enron #1

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Eygptograms

We are not pure empiricists
We use reason so we are also Rationalists
Apriori knowledge --> knowledge you already know and use to make assumption (Ra is a god)-->infer from this past experience, helps make assumptions
Not assumptions, premises

Inductive vs. Deductive on today's activity
Deductive --> General theory --> Went to specific (applied it)
Induction--> Specific --> General

Deductions: (Syllogisms)
All dogs are mammals
Fido is a dog
Therefore, Fido is a mammal

How an argument is put together--> Logical Putting together
logic:Premise one + Premise two = Conclusion (Called a Syllogism)

Three components to a syllogism:
A. 2 premises and a conclusion
B. 3 terms, each occurring twice. (Fido, dog, mammal)
C. Quantifier (All, some, none) Truth has nothing to do with arguments

Truth---> What is the case, property of statements
Public, eternal, independent
Justification --Perception, language, reason
Arguments: Is it valid or invalid? Does the conclusion follow the premise? If it does, it's valid. If not, it's invalid. But it is not true or false if it is valid or invalid.

Logical-- Does conclusion follow premise?
Validity -- Property of arguments
Truth-- Property of statements
You can't say an argument is true or false, it is valid or invalid
The validity of the argument is independent of the truth or falsity of the premises

Ex.All Ostriches are teachers (False)
Mr. Steedman is an Ostrich (False)
Therefore Mr. Steedman is a teacher. (True)

Logic: structure of the argument-- if it is logical, does the conclusion follow the premise?

Ex: All A's are B's
Some A's are C's
Therefore some B's are C's 

All A's are B's
All B's are C's
Therefore all C's are A's
Invalid argument!!

Truth: What is the case, property of statement?

-       Public

-       Eternal

-       Independent

Justify=perception,  LanguageàDescription, Acquaintance

Syllogysim

Logicàdoes conclusion follow premise

Invalid=conclusion doesn’t follow logically from premise

Syllogismsàif premise if true, it can preserve the truth

Be aware of Belief Bias: just because you believe the conclusion, doesn’t make it true

No martians have red noses

Rudolph has a red nose

Therefore rudolph is not a  martian

I enjoyed the egyptogram exercise. It was fun to use logic to figure out what each symbol meant. It was challenging at first to put the pieces together, and it was useful to have some apriori knowlegde, and it helped us solve some problems. It was interesting to understand how to read the language and to see how it became easier to read as time went on.

Kpelle Reasoning:Looking at the way the Kpelle analysed the Spider and Black deer syllogism was interesting. The way they asked for contextual information shows how their thinking differs from what we are used to (western-style thinking) where we can use the facts we're given, and decipher the answer without any background information.

Option A

For ToK (Theory of Knowledge), we have to do a project, explaining several objectives, in reference to the movie L’Enfant Sauvage (The Wild Child). One of our options was to create a piece of artwork.
For my piece I took decided to use a piece of matte board. I was originally going to have a dark purple barrier down the middle, but I decided to change that because the two sides were dark colors, and I wanted the barrier to stand out. I decided to paint it white instead.
I decided to do some research on color meanings. Using Google I found the website: Color Wheel Pro: Color Meaning (http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/color-meaning.html )
I found that “Blue symbolizes…intelligence…” (among many other meanings), and “Red is a very emotionally intense color. Dark red is associated with vigor [and] willpower…” (also among other meanings). I decided that these two colors would be the perfect background for the Dt. Itard side of the matte board. I decided that I would put the dark red on the bottom, and brush blue on the top. Both colors are visible, and they also combine to make up a dark purple color, which according to my research “can cause frustration.” Dr. Itard had a lot of frustration in trying to educate Victor.
For Victor’s side I decided to use black as a base color because “black is a mysterious color, associated with…the unknown.” I thought this was perfect because not a lot is known, nor were many attempts made to find out about Victor’s past. It is therefore, shrouded in mystery. To add color to Victor’s side, I decided to splatter paint it for several reason. One was because Victor never fully developed to the “normal” standards, especially speaking, that Dr. Itard had which for him to achieve. The splatters symbolize how different he is from Dr. Itard, who has a solid background. The splatters also have a chaotic effect, which represents Victor’s wildness. The final reason I choose to splatter paint was because it was the most effective way of incorporating all the colors, which represent Victor. The colors I used most prominently for Victor were white, which symbolizes innocence, and green, which symbolizes growth. Throughout the movie, theses were vicotr’s two strongest traits. Secondarily, was my use of the other colors, blue (once again, intelligence), red (passion, vigor, willpower), and yellow (“produces a warming effect, arouses cheerfulness, stimulates mental activity”). All of theses colors represent how Victor acts throughout the movie. For Dr. Itard’s name I chose to use the color white simply because it stood out best against the background. I chose purple, and the less rigid letter for Victor’s name to symbolizes his mental wildness, and because purple also conveys mystery.
I chose to put two breaks in the barrier, to symbolize Dr. Itard’s breakthrough to Victor, and Victor’s own breakthrough. Across the barriers is the word “lait” (milk), twice, the only word Victor ever spoke, and was the perhaps the most important breakthrough Victor had.
On either side of the barrier are pictures. They are mostly stills from the movie, which I got by searching key words, such as Wild Child, L’enfant Sauvage, Victor of Aveyron, Dr. Itard, and mixes of the words. On the left are pictures of Francois Truffaut, who played Dr. Itard in the movie, and two illustrations of the real Dr. Itard. On the right side, are pictures of Jean-Pierre Cargol, who played Victor, and one drawing of the real Victor of Aveyron. I picked specific stills from the movie, to really show Dr. Itard and Victor Many of the pictures, were actually of the two actors together but I separated them to show each character specifically. The Pictures of Dr. Itard show him in thought, reaching out, or recording what is happening. This is how he was for the majority of the movie, always in motion, thinking of ways to get through to Victor. The pictures of victor are slightly different. There are pictures of him staring off into space, as he does many times throughout the movie, which he most often does when he does not understand, and doesn’t really seem to care. There are also pictures of victor with his alphabet board and him with the key to the milk cupboard, and him learning to walk upright. These are all pictures of his growth.
On the divider, there are three pictures. On is of Victor and Dr. Itard, walking together, one is of Dr. Itard, Victor, and Citizen Pinel, in front of the mirror, where Victor realizes that it is himself in the mirror. There is also a picture at the bottom of Victor biting Dr. Itard. These three significant images really show the breakthroughs Victor had. Victor was able to interact and walk straight-upright (image 1), Victor shows he is more intelligent than most animals, by recognizing himself in the mirror (image 2), and Victor biting Dr. Itard, when he tries force Victor into the closet, without cause or reason (image 3).
Image 3 is particularly significant. Dr. Itard has taught Victor emotion and reason, and justice. Victor lashes out when forced to go in the closet for no good basis. He has reasoned that he performed the task Dr. Itard asked, correctly, and his anger and fear (emotion), at going into the closet cause him to lash out.
Dr. Itard wants Victor to speak. He wants to show the world that a feral child (see the image below Victor’s name), can be trained and taught to be a normal human being. He wants to show that he can bridge the gap of lost education from the early years. He does this by repeating certain words, lait, being repeated the most often, and by giving Victor the board with letters to put in the correct place. In the movie, he tries to teach Victor the vowels, and how to say them.
Dr. Itard teaches Victor perception in several different ways. The first, is through the mirror, and how Victor realizes that the image in front of him is a reflection of himself. Another way is thrpugh Victor’s alphabet board. At first he just put the letters in the same order, but when Dr. Itard changes it, victor must learn to recognize the different letters, and put them where they actually belong, not where he is used to putting them. This is also how Dr. Itard teaches Victor language, because Victor never speaks, besides the word lait. Dr. tard teaches Victor to understand language, but he never successfully teaches Victor to speak.
I used modgepodge to cover the pictures so that there would not rip,a nd prevent them from losing their stickiness.
I really like the way that this piece came out. I think it conveys the general story of Victor of Aveyron, and how Dr. Itard taught him.

"In-Class" Essay

The use of Oralism (aka the Oral method) and Sign language impact the deaf view of reality, in two separate and different ways. Oralism has a better realm of reality, on Earth, where not everyone knows how to use sign language, and not everyone is deaf, so communication is more difficult. Sign language has a better realm of reality on Eyeth (the name deaf people call a world where not one speaks, everyone just signs), where everyone uses Sign language to communicate, and everyone understand through that means of “speaking.”
The Sapir –Whorf Hypothesis applies to Deaf Culture in the way that deaf people communicate (sign language). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that different language patterns yield different patterns of thought is shown in Deaf Culture through the world they call “Eyeth.” In Eyeth, the deaf person only has to focus on the sign language, and doesn’t get caught up in reading lips, so that if someone speaks to them to quickly, they might miss something. Sign language is essentially different language, because it is different than speaking. Through Sapir-Whorf, deaf people who use only sign language may have a clearer understanding of what is trying to be said because there a specific for words, and there is a sign for each letter of the alphabet. If a deaf person was using Oralism, aka reading lips, and learning to speak, their patterns of thought would be different than sign language. If a deaf person were reading lips, they might miss a word and not understand the full meaning, the way they would if the conversation was being signed. Similarly, if a deaf person can read lips, and can speak coherently, a hearing person may treat the deaf person the same a hearing one, which could lead to things like speaking with his/her back to the deaf person, the way hearing people sometimes talk to each other, which would prevent the deaf person from understanding that part of the conversation, which changes the way the deaf person thinks about whatever the topic of conversation is.
Oralism and Signing facilitate, extend, direct or limit thinking in different way. Oralism is makes it easier for a deaf person to communicate with a hearing person, facilitating them by speaking, as best they can, and reading the hearing person’s lips, so that s/he does not have to sign. It also limits the thinking on both the deaf person and hearing person’s parts. The deaf person may be limited in how fast they can read lips, and so some words may get lost, which can skew the meaning the hearing person is trying to get across. The hearing person is limited in how they can communicate with the deaf person. It is almost rude to constantly rely on the other person to do so much work in holding a simple conversation. Signing both extends, and facilitates thinking. It is extended through hand-eye coordination, watching the hands sign, and replying almost instantaneously with one’s one signs. The better people can sign to each other, the more fluent the conversation becomes, and the more easily the conversation is understood. Signing facilitates thinking because specific signs can only mean certain things so it is easier to understand what is being said when one is holding a conversation in sign. However, signing can also limit thinking. If two people are conversing in sign, it makes it much harder for others to join the conversation, even those who can already sign because who ever wants to join the conversation must watch it carefully for a while to understand what is being discussed. This is basically impossible for any non-signing person to do. In Abel, Mill and Frege say that “the meaning of a sentence ought to depend only on the meaning of words that constitute it,” which basically is a sentence that says what it means, and has relevance to the context or makes sense. However, in language there are always colloquialisms and idioms, so the words don’t always have the meaning they traditionally have, and with signing, it is hard to express those, especially to a newly-signing person, which can make a conversation a) difficult to hold, and b) difficult to understand.
When the Deaf use the Oral method or Signing, what they know is different in each language. With the oral method, lip reading provides a direct meaning and so a deaf person can know what has just been said, although words may get lost, depending on how fast one speaks. Also, when a deaf person uses the Oral method to speak, they know that what they are saying can be understood by hearing people. With Signing, deaf people know exactly what is being said because there are specific signs for almost anything. Anything that doesn’t have a sign can easily be spelled out using the sign alphabet. Each “language,” however, does have a different framework of reality. On “Eyeth,” Deaf people communicate solely through sign, which isolates them from hearing people who cannot sign. It provides better communication among those who can sign, because they are focused solely on the signs and not through understanding fast-paced lips. Through sign, objects can be described better through referencing, therefore becoming more specific. If there is no specific sign for the word egg, a person signing can still describe what they had for breakfast, simply through referencing. It is possible for them to say (through signs of course) “This morning I had two of what a chicken lays, for breakfast.” It simply takes longer.
On Earth, where the oral method would be used more often, there is a sense, cultivated by Alexander Graham Bell, of eugenics, and “breeding” deafness out of the population. Using Oralism, and not sign, deaf people would be able to “mate and pro-create” with hearing people, which would hopefully (in the eyes of the eugenicists) breed out the undesirable trait of deafness. This frame of reality is a little off. Deafness is a mutation that is likely to reoccur, whether someone has two deaf parents or one, or none. It is unrealistic and horrible to keep deaf people separated from each other. In the documentary, families that have two deaf parents say that they found each other and connected better because they were deaf. If you isolate each deaf person, whether they can use the oral method or not, doesn’t prevent them from being lonely, and not having someone they can relate to. However, the Oral method is more realistic on Earth. It allows the deaf people to communicate with the hearing people, not only by reading lips, but also by the deaf speaking, so that their ideas may be conveyed as well.
Abel’s explanation of Sense and reference, sense is a description, and reference is that “which is what the words point to or designate,” play into how the Deaf might use Oralism or signing to view reality. According to the documentary, originally the deaf didn’t know what something was. Gaulledet tried to bring meaning to things and objects, and he did this by creating sign language, which gave the deaf community a way to express and communicate with each other. Sign language, gave both a sense and a reference to things so that they could properly be explained to deaf people. Through sign language, he could describe an object (sense), and then give it a name (reference), which helped deafs to understand the world better, and it gave them a better sense of reality, because they could look at something, know, what it was called, and actually describe it. Through the Oral method they could also do this and connect to hearing people, which kept them in touch with reality, because they had to communicate with people. Abel’s quote, “Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words,” means, in the context of the hearing and the deaf, that those who are able to understand the meaning of a words, and what that words stands in for (i.e. an object or idea), are better able to communicate with the world around them. “Linguistic symbols to organize experience,” means, in the context of the hearing and the deaf, that linguistic symbols, like Sign language, help to explain the things we experience around us, in different ways.
Implications of my claims are that it is possible for deaf and hearing peoples to communicate sufficiently, through both groups’ understanding of words and what they mean, and what they stand for. This, in theory, means that there should be perfect understanding and communication through all people. If hearing people learned to sign, and deaf people learned to read lips and speak, people would be able to understand each other much more clearly, and conversations would flow much more easily. The counterclaim to my argument is, of course, that the world does not work so perfectly. There will always be those who do not wish to learn to better communicate with others, that will leave it up to someone else to learn to sign, or to speak and read lips. There will always be those who do not wish to communicate with those who make no effort. Also, meanings of words are not always clear, which makes communication that much more difficult.
In conclusion, Oralism and Sign language are different capacities, for which different realities exist. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps one way is better than another, although that should be based solely on opinion.

Genie #2

1. What was so significant about Chomsky's argument?
The part of Chomsky’s argument that was so significant was that he made “syntax central, and for the first time it was clear how big the task was, how difficult the child’s task was in acquiring language.” This was part of the explanation to why Genie was not learning to speak.

2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
I think that Chomsky’s bird argument is an interesting piece of evidence to his the theory that language is a skill that comes naturally to humans not something that must be learned. It makes sense that a child raised by birds would not end up flying because it is unconditionally impossible for a human to fly; it is simply not a skill humans posses. In Chomsky’s argument, he believes that language is a skill humans innately posses, it, however, must be cultivated.

3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
I agree with Chomsky’s claim about the island experiment at the end of Chapter 7. I think that even if language is a skill which humans innately posses, that skill must be cultivated. However, there are differences between isolating one child with no language, and several children with no language. I think that it would be impossible for the individual to develop language, simply because s/he has no one to interact with. But, I think that if you were to place “prelinguistic children on an island,” eventually some sort of language would develop, for means of communication.

4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
Genie’s observer’s were pleased to see her hitting other children, because it showed he r progression towards the normalcy of an un-abused child. Where “previously [Genie’s] rage had been directed inward,” her lashing out at other children, showed that “Genie was developing a sense of self.”

5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Genie’s vocabulary, as in words she understood, increased enormously, yet her speech progressed very little. “Her curiosity about her new surroundings sent her on a constant quest for the names of things. She would lead one or another of her caretakers around, using their fingers to touch or point to object, while they said the corresponding words. ‘Hungry to learn the words for all the new items filing her senses…’” She began to understand what they object around her were called, and she could understand what they were when said by name, but she could not speak. “Although Genie’s vocabulary increased, her speech stayed limited to a few short utterances; it soon became clear that she was understanding more than she could produce.”

6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
The primary difference between the reading and the film were that Dr. Itard “terrorized” Victor more than is conveyed in the movie, in attempts to “normalize” him. He actually used a Leyden jar, instead of the closet, in the movie. Also, Dr. Itard “once dangled the boy from a fifth-story window to frighten him out of his recalcitrance.”

7. How did the film, Wild Child impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
The Wild Child impacted the symposium members by making them ask questions about how this case of isolation, similar to Genie’s, was handled, what the outcomes were, and what could now possibly be expected of Genie. What is meant by that statement was that those who saw the movie were able to confirm their biases (which were: “what Genie could best reveal to science, and what, in the course of that revealing, science could ethically ask of Genie.”). The Wild Child showed them the “answers” to their questions and biases, but each member really only took away what s/he wanted.

8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61?
I agree with Dr. Elkind’s quote. If Genie’s caretakers put too much emphasis on her learning to speak, and only rewarded with “love” when she did well in the speech area, she might not make progress and/or even regress because she would not be getting the attention she generally needed, whether or not she could speak. I think Dr. Freedman’s suggestion is a good one, because it mimics the life of a “normal” child. Is Genie was exposed to one primary caretaker, like a mother, the time could come when she might speak in order to please that caretaker. With so many people paying attention to her, spending time with her, and expecting so much of her, it might have been too much pressure on her to please everyone. She might have made more progress if she had one person who she truly wanted to please because that person was the primary “lover” in her life.

9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Victor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
It was important for Dr. Itard to teach Victor to “imagine the needs of others” because a “normal” person does not only think of him/herself all the time. A person considers the emotions and needs of others in the world, and thereby is able to properly interact with others. Considering others makes one a better person because one is able to help others, and make the world a better place to live. CAS does do this. It makes the student aware of how thing in the “real world” (i.e. not school or home), work, and it actually makes the students participate in the world, preparing them for life on their own, where it in order to survive, one must consider others, sometimes even before one considers him/herself.

10. After reading Chapter 14, do you agree that Truffaut's film ending was too optimistic?
I agree that Truffaut’s film ending was too optimistic. I do think it would have been better if he had added “an illustrated narrative of what happened to the characters after we them on the screen.” The note the movie ended on suggested that Victor eventually may have learned to speak, and that Dr. Itard continued on caring for him and teaching him. It was good to leave it on an optimistic note, but it was too optimistic and needed a dose of realism. If the narrative had been added, the movie would have better conveyed the limitations of educating “feral children” or “closet children.”

Genie #1

1. What was Psamtik's experiment? What did he hope to learn? Did he?
His experiment was to take two children from their mothers at a very young age, and put them in a hut with a shepherd who would not speak to them. He hoped to learn what the protolanguage, the very first language was, and he hoped that it would be Egyptian, or related to Egyptian, because he was the King of Egypt at that time. When “the pair accosted [the shepherd] with their first utterance. The word they had developed was “bekos,” the Phrygian word for bread. Pstamik declared that Phrygian, the language of an Indo-European people in Asia Minor, was the protolanguage. However, his research “has not well stood the test of time.” There are problems with his experiment. “There is no way of ascertaining whether the children had a natural grasp of many languages and were merely expressing an innate human preference for Phrygian baked goods.” It is also possibly that the sheep the shepherd watch made a noise like bekos, and perhaps the children were imitating that noise.

2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
Abel hinted at the same concept in The Functions of Language, and linguistic competence. The questions of whether or not language is a learned skill, or a naturally adapted skill.

3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Linguistics and Astronomy “constitute an unlikely sisterhood” because they are “both often constrained to be more observational than experimental—astronomy because its subjects are too distant to be experimented on, linguistics because its subject are too human.” The way each subject must be studied, have similar qualities, so they are considered to be in a sisterhood.

4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
The Social Worker was concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother because she had a “halting gait and a curious posture—unnaturally stooped, hands held up as though resting on an invisible rail. The worker alerted her supervisor to what she thought was an unreported case of autism…”

5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
The study of language began as religious when, prior to 1450 (the beginning of the era known as the “High Renaissance”) when “European philosophers related [any question] to the Bible. Any human attribute must be inevitably mysterious and divine beyond investigation as the creator it reflected.” When Descartes (during the High Renaissance) “proposed the independence of the soul from the body, of the mind from the brain…allowed much leeway to the nascent [developing] science of biology.” When in the late 17th century “Leibniz proclaimed language ability to be a gift of God” and “language was considered [to be] an integral part—perhaps a keystone—of man’s soul or (less likely)man’s reason, or both,” the study of language was making a jump from biological to theological. “By the late 19th century as comparative linguists handled the relationship of one tongue to another, the bulk of questions concerning the relationship of language to man had disappeared into psychology—a discipline the questions helped create.”