Why Noam Chomsky...

[Guest Raidne]

...but totally shunned in the United States.

For one, Chomsky is probably the most important linguist who has ever existed, primarily for proposing the existence of a "universal grammar." MMM, if I remember correctly, will likely come in here and school me on this, but the idea is that humans possess an innate language acquisition device (LAD), and that if we could understand the mechanism of the LAD, we'd eventually get some features that would make up a universal grammar.

(I'm no cognitive scientist, but, IMHO, the biological brain does not create abstract propositions as its most fundamental ability, and, rather, most of what we think are our abstract ideas are actually paradigms - a hub in the neural network with features that are less and less salient and more diverse as we track further away from the hub, so, IMO, the LAD is, if not identical, part of the same fundamental ability that allows us to have language. Because what is language is not the creation of abstract concepts? I know, to some of you I probably sound like an idiot because I've never really read my Wittgenstein, but anyway, that's what I've got. Also, paradoxically, if I remember correctly, it's only when AIs are programmed using a neural network model that they are seemingly able to acquire language in a way that looks anything like what humans do, which would seem to blow a pretty big whole in my theory there, also, but moving on.)

Anyway, thinking about this stuff is, yes, hard, especially when you're going to ask not only what sorts of grammar mistakes children often make in learning languages, cross-culturally, in order to figure out innate language ability, but also try to effectively brainstorm what sort of mistakes children aren't making. It's really pretty freaking difficult to get that far out of your own head. Or maybe I'm an idiot. But, I can say that it's certainly hard for me.

Lastly, speaking generally, this guy is one of the last people even arguing any kind of innate ideas theory anymore that's not doing so from a biological determinist standpoint - everyone else seems to have dropped it back during British Empiricism.

And so, on to the guy's politics. Hopefully we've established that the guy has an intellect that has to be taken seriously (although given past discussions on Paul Krugman, I doubt it).

So, Chomsky's far from an idiot. But so many people treat him as such when it comes to politics. Or dismiss him as a radical. But, so often, what's a radical besides someone who off the mainstream spectrum? Why is it the radical that should not be taken seriously, instead of the state of mainstream political discourse?

So, Chomsky is a self-described anarcho-syndicalist (custom title waiting to happen...), which, if you've ever read him, is what I would guess Kim Stanley Robinson is. Anti "wage slavery," seeks to have workers own the means of production, intended to replace capitalism within a democracy. Anarco-syndicalist are also against state ownership of the means of production, to distinguish from Marxism.

So, recently, he said this about the death of bin Laden:

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

Indeed, Noam, we might ask.

So, some have suggested that Chomsky is not worth taking seriously. Let's hear why. If anyone wants to discuss the LAD, etc., or anarcho-syndicalism generally, I'm down with that also.

[DrownedCrow]

For one, Chomsky is probably the most important linguist who has ever existed, primarily for proposing the existence of a "universal grammar." MMM, if I remember correctly, will likely come in here and school me on this, but the idea is that humans possess an innate language acquisition device (LAD), and that if we could understand the mechanism of the LAD, we'd eventually get some features that would make up a universal grammar.

It's too bad his big idea has been largely discredited. That probably won't improve his chances of gaining greater recognition. Maybe he still has a shot at being important to linguistics the way that Freud was important to psychology.

[Ormond]

I have no problem with people taking Chomsky's political ideas seriously as part of normal public discourse.

I do think if the quote you give is typical, however, he would come off sounding arrogant and deliberately provocative in a way that would encourage many people to dismiss his ideas. I would particularly point to his use of the word "Uncontroversially" in the quoted paragraph. Come on, there may be certain groups in the world where that would be true, but the statement that Bush's crimes are greater than Bin Laden's would not be agreed with by the great majority of Americans, even those who don't like Bush or his policies very much. So he is saying something which he knows is actually counterfactual seemingly just for rhetorical shock effect.

[Guest Raidne]

It really depends on how strongly you take his claims. I think you could say that the strongest version of the Principles and Parameters approach has been discredited.

But, then, at some point, you get down to just saying that the human brain has some sort of innate ability to process language and strip the UG down to a really bare-bones sort of thing where it ceases to be anything that anyone would contest, so it's kind of a double bind.

I think that, without a doubt, Chomsky is as important to linguistics as Freud is to psychology.

[Guest Raidne]

Come on, there may be certain groups in the world where that would be true, but the statement that Bush's crimes are greater than Bin Laden's would not be agreed with by the great majority of Americans, even those who don't like Bush or his policies very much. So he is saying something which he knows is actually counterfactual seemingly just for rhetorical shock effect.

But, who cares what the great majority of Americans think?

Make an argument for me, from any ethical theory, showing that Bush's crimes are not greater than bin Laden's? Particularly if you assume they knew that Iraq posed no imminent threat?

[Ormond]

But, who cares what the great majority of Americans think?

? Since you started off this thread with the statement that Chomsky is "totally shunned in the United States" I thought you were talking precisely about what the majority of Americans (or at least educated Americans) think.

Who was Chomsky's audience when he made that statement? I suppose there would be certain contexts where it could be true, but even among most highly-educated Americans it would be false.

To use a word like "uncontroversially" in that statement seems to me to show that he's only preaching to the converted there and isn't trying to make rational arguments on that point. And that sort of attitude often leads to people not being taken seriously, whether their personal politics are on the right or on the left.

[Insomnium]

Hey, I remember this guy from my Automata and Formal-Languages class! That was a fun one. Other than performing Chomsky transformations to produce context free grammars, I've never head of him before. :blushing:

[sologdin]

to distinguish from Marxism.

noam also has no use for abstruse hegelian theory (i.e., dialectics).

regarding the "most-cited living author thing"--if we don't count sophomoric crap written by university students, and noam's own citations to his prior work, then his numbers aren't quite as stratospheric.

[Guest Raidne]

? Since you started off this thread with the statement that Chomsky is "totally shunned in the United States" I thought you were talking precisely about what the majority of Americans (or at least educated Americans) think.

Who was Chomsky's audience when he made that statement? I suppose there would be certain contexts where it could be true, but even among most highly-educated Americans it would be false.

To use a word like "uncontroversially" in that statement seems to me to show that he's only preaching to the converted there and isn't trying to make rational arguments on that point. And that sort of attitude often leads to people not being taken seriously, whether their personal politics are on the right or on the left.

What I mean is that I think he likely meant that there's no good argument to be made otherwise, and that, therefore, it's uncontroversial.

As opposed to the idea where we get, you know, a certain number of people who want to teach the existence of the Great Spaghetti Monster and now we have a Great Spaghetti Monster controversy.

Solo - Point well taken. Nevertheless, the fact that a lot of freshman have seen Manufacturing Consent doesn't mean that his ideas should not be taken seriously.

[Guest Raidne]

noam also has no use for abstruse hegelian theory (i.e., dialectics).

Kind of ironic, since the tendancy to understand and resolve things that way, even on an individual level, in addition to the societal level, is arguably one of the more innate things out there.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I do think if the quote you give is typical, however, he would come off sounding arrogant and deliberately provocative in a way that would encourage many people to dismiss his ideas. I would particularly point to his use of the word "Uncontroversially" in the quoted paragraph. Come on, there may be certain groups in the world where that would be true, but the statement that Bush's crimes are greater than Bin Laden's would not be agreed with by the great majority of Americans, even those who don't like Bush or his policies very much. So he is saying something which he knows is actually counterfactual seemingly just for rhetorical shock effect.

Ormond, you've hit on the exact reason I can't even discuss the guy anymore. He's got a consistent schtick -- making highly controversial factual assertions while simultaneously claiming they are uncontroversial. So you end up having to deconstruct his factual assumptions before you can get to any discussions of interest. That is tedious and uninteresting, at least to me personally.

What I mean is that I think he likely meant that there's no good argument to be made otherwise, and that, therefore, it's controversial.

If we have to grade one of the greatest linguists in the world on some sort of curve by assuming that he "really means" something different than the plain meaning of the words he actually uses, then I think he's having a laugh at our expense. He is way too smart a guy not to know the accepted meanings of the words he uses.

In the discussions us boarders have on various issues, we occasionally bump heads and end up arguing semantics, or have some confusion over what it is meant because our word choices aren't always accurate. But those roadblocks tend to be unintentional, and most of us are adult enough to say "sorry if I misinterpreted what you said", or "I didn't mean that the way you took it", and move on. But I believe Chomsky does this sort of word confusion deliberately, stretching the meanings of words, then building a chain of such distortions to reach conclusions that aren't really supported by logic. Instead, they are supported by a chain of linguistic sleights of hand, based upon highly controversial factual assertions he minimizes by blithely asserting as uncontroversial fact.

Anyway, for one of the few times I can recall, I share the views of Alan Dershowitz.

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2115/bin-laden-defender-noam-chomsky

[Ahmrogar]

I see him as a brilliant academic but outside of his linguistic speciality he seems a bit like an ivory tower idealist, especially for practical or political realities, and one prone to quite an extent of intellectual arrogance.

As an economist I don't particularly think highly of anarchy or socialism either, which he espouses IIRC.

[Guest Raidne]

So, how many people would seriously need to believe that we should teach the existence of the Great Spaghetti Monster in public schools for that to become a controversial issue for you?

I think we both agree on the whole, you know, "the guy's a freaking linguist he clearly chose his words intentionally" thing.

[Colder Hands]

(EDITed this part for Coco as he made a good point and my apologies for offense.)

while there is no denying chomsky was at the forefront of the linguists in the modern age, there is some denying on his accuracy and hard line view of linguistics. many feel that chomsky's approach leaves out the ability to form more unique sentences and also is limiting in the scientific world. like famed and highly published larry trask. trask attacks chomsky's idea of a universal grammar and i tend to agree with him. the different brain patterns we see in the human race does not allow for everyone to put together grammar the same way. even to an extent of being taught the pattern, some people just can't put those pieces together. while trask does give chomsky credit for there being an evolved innate ability for language that is like agreeing that blue is blue.

Paul Postal and Marvin Minsky also have published some great criticisms of chomsky and his work as a linguist. This post will be long enough without highlighting them but many of chomsky's wild theories discount the ability for fast phrasing that is one of the strong suits of human beings and language. i don't understand long winded and detailed theories of speech that devalue the plain of intelligence and communicating on different levels. chomsky's theories are more suited for computer code than human language. but, this comes from someone who also has never cared for sentence structure or grammar so i recognize i have a bias there as well.

the reason chomsky is one of the last ones arguing any kind of innate ideas theory anymore that's not doing so from a biological determinist standpoint is because others are not that interested in crack pot theories that they themselves manufacture with no scientific evidence past obscure references and common observation.

onto my real issues with chomsky...

chomsky's political views.

again chomsky uses facts to his liking alah rush limbaugh.

i extremely disagree with likening the US to Nazi Germany for our involvement in Vietnam. he attacks only the US for their impact on North Korea but never references responsibilities to South Korea or China.

chomsky's refusal to recognize the death toll in Cambodia and attacking the US for trying to rewrite history to make ourselves look better was a freaking joke. between 2 and 2.5 million people were killed and this guy does not believe it. maybe because he was too busy sitting at his desk smoking pot and writing shit out of his ass rather than maybe going to Cambodia or fact checking past conspiracy. I don't know if i should fully discount him on everything or just think he is half cracked.

due to the long history of middle east debates on the board i won't go into length on his views of the holocaust and today's israel and palestine and the US role. but let's be basic and say i completely disagree with him here as well. while i do agree that israel should not get a pass for the innocent lives it takes, palestne plays a role in that moving innocents to hot spot targets in attempt to shield their weapons/equipment and make israel look bad.

he looks at US aid in poor countries as us trying to mold them so they can't grow on their own and present a better alternative to capitalism. now he is just panhandling to his conspiracy base in attempts to gain more fame.

in the mean time chomsky attacks the death of OBL and likens it to if Bush was taken out that same way and how we would react. i feel Bush did commit a lot of crimes and should answer for them and depending on the findings and evidence he could be held accountable to the highest degree. it is fair for someone to write that, but again he just seems to take any side he can against the US and sensationalize it for his own agenda.

so looking at how he always calls the US and Israel out on collateral damage and writes in great length how terrible both are, let's look at his 2006 publish opinion that hezbollah and lebanon needed to stay armed. the same hezbollah responsible for countless suicide bombings and attacks from 1942-1986, and some since. attacks which lead to high collateral damage. and then there is all the angles between his support of hezbollah, their support from iran and other middle east countries with tense US relations.

he publishes constant issues with capitalism and yet he appeals to a base support group and panhandles to them for sales and direct support. he does not lower the prices of his works, enjoys vast wealth and has tax havens set up all over the world. the hoover institute did research on chomsky's portfolio and wealth and shocking as it may seem he invests highly in oil, MILITARY CONTRACTORS and big pharmaceutical companies!!! all of which he makes a fortune attacking publicly and in his books.

i am the first person to want to hold the US accountable for wrong doings. i hate how this country was founded and with native american roots of my own i am sick at lots of things this country did. i also believe that the government lies to us plently and all that other good stuff.

that said i believe chomsky is a hack who has his own agenda, lies to his fans and supporters and laughs all the way to the bank.

what he accomplished in linguistics is completely meaningless to me when taking into account the man. sometimes the bad people commit far outweighs the good.

[Guest Raidne]

Not like Alan Dershowitz doesn't make an effort to phrase things controversially?

The real question is why any reasonable person pays any attention to the ignorant rants of this America-hater, Israel-basher and conspiracy theorist. I can understand why Osama Bin Laden himself was, according to the Wall Street Journal, "a fan of Noam Chomsky." Bin Laden said that "Chomsky was correct when he compared U.S. policies to the Mafia." (See, Bin Laden wasn't an anti-Semite after all, since he liked at least one Jew[/n]....

!!!!!

[Screaming Turkey Reborn]

Maybe he still has a shot at being important to linguistics the way that Freud was important to psychology.

I thought modern psychology pretty much disregards Freudian psychoanalysis as pseudoscience.

[Ahmrogar]

I thought modern psychology pretty much disregards Freudian psychoanalysis as pseudoscience.

It does, from my experience with basically every psychology student I've ever met the vast majority of Freud's ideas have been rejected.

He's more studied as a philosophy and as a historical figure in psychology rather than a psychologist.

[Kouran]

Raidne the fact that GWB was acting with the backing of the duly elected representatives of his nation whereas OBL was acting outside of any apparatus of a nation state puts the lie to his concept of GWB being a war criminal. Was GWB wrong, of that there is no doubt, yet the fact remains his actions were approved of by the majority of the Congress and thus given legal license. The only possible war crime GWB committed was waging aggressive war, though I see that as more a made up way to hang Nazi’s than anything else.

As to the whole anarcho-syndicalist philosophy I find it poisonous on its face. People need to have an incentive to excel if you can live out a perfectly content life by working no harder than a bagger at the local corner grocery why even try harder?

The fight against wage slavery is just a rush to mediocrity in my view. To my mind we are all equal to the point of exertion; he who works harder should be rewarded more.

[Shryke]

Why he's not popular in the US?

A combination of things. Firstly, his calling the US, repeatedly, on all the bullshit it pulls. This isn't unique to the US, he calls the UK or any of the Western powers on this shit too. The US just tends to be more touchy about this kind fo shit in my experience.

Secondly, he tends to do it in a way that makes him come off like the old "filthy liberal hippy" stereotype that makes you wanna punch him.

It's a formula practically designed to get you dismissed in the US.

Personally?

Politically, I find him ... schizophrenic. He takes a very hardline idealistic stance on Western powers, but then turns around and takes a very realpolitik cynical view on non-Western powers.

It seems more a stance designed around his hatred of colonialism and standing up for the "little guy" and all that.

PS - Dershowitz? What a fucking douche.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not like Alan Dershowitz doesn't make an effort to phrase things controversially?

!!!!!

Of course he does. He's a lawyer. But he recognizes that he makes controversial arguments, and defends them as such. He doesn't, like Chomsky, hide behind a pretense of intellectual objectivity.