Editing The Language Instinct (section)

==Reception==
Pinker's assumptions about the innateness of language have been challenged; English linguist [[Geoffrey Sampson]] argues that there is no such thing as a language instinct; however, he acknowledges that Pinker represents a widely held view of language acquisition.<ref>Geoffrey Sampson: [http://www.grsampson.net/BLID.html The ‘Language Instinct’ Debate].</ref><ref name="Sampson_2007">{{cite journal | last=Sampson | first=Geoffrey | year=2007 | title=There is no language instinct | url=https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4783/478348690002.pdf | journal=Ilha do Desterro | issue=52 | pages=35–63 | doi= }}</ref>

[[Richard Webster (British author)|Richard Webster]] writes in ''[[Why Freud Was Wrong]]'' (1995), and concludes that Pinker argues cogently that the human capacity for language is part of the genetic endowment associated with the evolution through natural selection of specialised neural networks within the brain, and that its attack on the '[[standard social science model]]' of human nature is effective. Webster accepts Pinker's argument that, for ideological motives, twentieth-century social scientists have minimized the extent to which human nature is influenced by genetics. However, Webster finds Pinker's speculation about other specialized neural networks that may have evolved within the human brain—such as "intuitive mechanics" and "intuitive biology"—to be questionable, and believes that there is a danger that they will be treated by others as science. Webster believes that such speculations strengthen supporters of extreme [[genetic determinism]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Webster, Richard |title=Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis |publisher=The Orwell Press |location=Oxford |year=2005 |pages=609–610 |isbn=0-9515922-5-4 }}</ref>