If you don't check it, every time in future you see the word comparable you will recognise it and what it means but will just sound odd if you read it out loud that way to someone.
This just proves my point, there is an additional mapping from the entire word "compare" to the sound for it and "able" to the sound for it. When you see it together you'll pronounce it as it were two separate words, which is odd. And this doesn't contradict the fact that you have a visual storage for initially recognizing the words. I guess I'm just saying you don't go letter by letter and sound out the word. Because if people did they'd pronounce comparable correctly every time. Comparable has no special tricks, and follows all the rules of English pronunciation (at least in American English).
Why would you think that a PhD in Biological Sciences would be closely related (or even related) to one in Computer Science? Really?
The intelligence of PhDs really are Piled Higher and Deeper.
Biological Sciences have a lot of need for Computer Sciences right now. Everything from Genetics to Molecular Biology spends on staggering amounts of Statistics and CS work. I have a few friends of mine working for the National Health Institute and at Medical Schools and they all need CS and Stats background. So there is a pretty deep connect between Biology and CS right now. So yes, there is a very close relationship.
Obviously, a software firm may ask you why you got a Biological Sciences Ph.D. as opposed to a CS one, and why you are qualified. You may also get filtered out if CS is not on your resume as well. So, if you do get the Ivy Ph.D. you'll have some work cut out for you on your resume to make sure you come off the right way on paper.
Also, if you end up working for a Bio Tech, then this argument is moot, they would take a Biologist any day of the week.
And another thing: English is not my native language and I know a lot of English words I have never heard. Yet I can read them no problem. Another fact in favor of the theory in the article.
I am a native speaker and I've learned many words in writing before I learned them in speech. As a result, some of my pronunciations are nonstandard. I pronounce "comparable" as if it were "compare" + "able", even though the standard way is irregular, "comp" + "arable". I tried to pronounce these words from how they were written before I'd heard them.
I don't know why this is even up for debate. If you look at any ideogram languages, you can't just sound out each word. Especially Chinese, where there are character that sound the same but have different characters. Or even the same character can be read differently depending on context. You definitely memorized the shape. The article is definitely right that we must be storing a visual dictionary of sorts. If we had to sound out each word, then ideogram languages would have never been invented, too inefficient.
But this also doesn't mean that you don't also associate shapes to sounds. The reason you pronounce it like "compare" + "able" is because you associated the shape "compare" to its sound and "able" to its sound. When put together, it would come out as "compare" + "able". This doesn't prove that you sound out the words as you see them. However, English is a language that runs on syllables, and "compare" is a multiple syllable word, so it gets broken up in the official pronunciation of the word comparable.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein