> If it’s true, someone ought to be able to demonstrate it.
This is not a truism.
> Again, extraordinary evidence required.
Yeah, whatever, dude. I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out the irrelevance of the point that humans are physically capable of speaking like humans. That's moot to the claim that had been made in the parent comment.
I could go on about other points you made. For example, you seem to be conflating working memory ("multi-part instructions") with understanding of language, given that was what the parent commenter had claimed.
> He’s also being to ask insightful questions as he observes the world around him.
Cats don't have the same mental capabilities as a 3-4 year-old but that is not under contention. That doesn't strictly mean they don't have a similar capacity for language as a 3-4 year-old. Put another way, you were not talking about your son's capacity for understanding language but rather his general mental capacity, which is not an apt refutation of what was claimed.
This isn't to convince you of some belief (indeed, you're entitled to your opinion, friend) but to point out the illogic in your argument.
> If it’s true, someone ought to be able to demonstrate it.
This is not a truism.
> Again, extraordinary evidence required.
Yeah, whatever, dude. I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out the irrelevance of the point that humans are physically capable of speaking like humans. That's moot to the claim that had been made in the parent comment.
I could go on about other points you made. For example, you seem to be conflating working memory ("multi-part instructions") with understanding of language, given that was what the parent commenter had claimed.
> He’s also being to ask insightful questions as he observes the world around him.
Cats don't have the same mental capabilities as a 3-4 year-old but that is not under contention. That doesn't strictly mean they don't have a similar capacity for language as a 3-4 year-old. Put another way, you were not talking about your son's capacity for understanding language but rather his general mental capacity, which is not an apt refutation of what was claimed.
This isn't to convince you of some belief (indeed, you're entitled to your opinion, friend) but to point out the illogic in your argument.