I’ve watched a few lectures of his, which I found interesting, and while not exactly shocking, some of the information he provides seems like a possible exaggeration of the facts. However, as far as I can tell the man seems like a reliable, honest source.
While I understand data acquisition ultimately requires first hand research from the interested party before it can be 100% trusted, I’d like to know if my intuition of Chomsky is correct. What better way to determine this than to gather the consensus from fellow dope fiends?
So what are your opinions? Is Chomsky honest or not? If he is honest, is he sometimes narrowly focused on those details that support his ideology?
You can probably find any number of previous Chomsky threads if you search. If you want to read criticism of Chomsky elsewhere on the web, google “Oliver Kamm.”
you might find something about him here www.youtube.com/watch?v=23H1O7OaN24&feature=related in witch they interviewed him on pen and tellers bullshit episode about college but I don’t know if it should be taken for granted since the show is partly for entertainment and not exactly a credible documentary as someone close to me in the college system says.
That clip was hilarious: Penn & Teller got Chomsky to say dick-all (~30 seconds airtime, tops), but still spent a good chunk of time slagging him anyways.
In the world of linguistics, Chomsky is revered by many, but by those who do not revere him, regarded as someone who plays fast and loose with data; someone whose theories are more philosophy than science.
I’ve read a lot of his linguistics writings, but I don’t know much about his political writings. Let me repeat what I’ve said in two previous threads about his linguistics arguments:
Chomsky is like a poster to the SDMB who you know, at some level, is very smart and well read. His posts are superficially coherent and not overtly snide and yet any thread the guy enters will end up as a trainwreck. Chomsky had no idea of how to present an ordinary falsifiable theory. Any idea he presented will be defended from attacks from other people to the death. He would ignore contradictory evidence and misunderstand objections as much as necessary. He would take advantage of vagueness in his original presentation of his ideas to claim that his proposals already take care of any objections. He would actually claim that some objections were irrelevant because they don’t fall within the field of linguistics. He would later propose a new theory which was essentially throwing away all his previous ideas but would pretend that this was a minor revision to his old theories. He would never admit that someone else’s objections to his theories influenced him.
Not at all. A lot of long-time Dopers know better than to spend all their time posting to GD about issues that they are passionate about but don’t actually know very much about. A lot of long-time Dopers stick to GQ and maybe CS because they want to discuss facts rather than getting into endless arguments about topics that no one either inside or outside the SDMB is ever going to produce a definitive solution to.
I haven’t seen much in the way of false info, as in some fact that is demonstrably false. But he does engage in selective quoting, straw-manning, ignoring of context, and cherry-picking of evidence. He writes polemics. He’s not unlike Ann Coulter, just from a different perspective.
This was pretty much exactly what I was coming in to say. In his political writing at least ( I have never read any of his academic work in linguistics ) he doesn’t so much as event things as cherry-pick. So for example if he were interested in something like downplaying the misery of Pol Pot’s regime in comparison to something else, he might pick the lowest end estimate of deaths caused by the regime he could find, possibly from another source with an axe to grind. Or vice versa if he wanted to condemn it. However I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him pull something completely out of his ass, i.e. invented in his own little head.
Chomsky is a very bright and, at times at least, articulate man. But his political diatribes are best regarded as exactly that and taken with a grain of salt.
He is “unlike” her in being far superior both in intelligence and intellectual honesty; which ain’t saying much, and does not mean he is intellectually honest by any reasonable standard. Ethically superior as well – at least, you can tell he is in no way cynical and not just trying to sell books.
That he does. He wrote this about the accidental shoot down of an Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes
The obvious conclusion on reading this is that US Navy Commander David Carlson, who “wondered aloud in disbelief” didn’t think it was an accidental at all but rather was a deliberate act to murder an airliner full of Iranian civilians. Note however that he didn’t actually come out and say that, but it is the obvious implication of what he wrote. It’s also complete unadulterated bullshit. In the article by Commander David Carlson, the commander of a frigate that was the nearest ship to the Vincennes at the time of the shoot down, Carlson is extremely critical of the actions of the Vincennes and its commander in creating what was an entirely avoidable tragic accident, namely in the decision to compress the battle zone by moving closer to the Iranian coast while in a fight with a number of small Iranian craft that had fired on Vincennes helicopters. Doing so reduced the time available to react, and the Iranian airliner was mistakenly identified by the Vincennes as an Iranian F-14. Carlson at no point says or implies that the Vincennes knew it was shooting at an airliner or that they thought they were shooting anything but at what they had thought was an F-14 out of mistaken identification. Carlson was in disbelief when he saw the Vincennes fire a missile because his ship had properly identified it as a civilian airliner, and if the Vincennes hadn’t pressed the combat with the Iranian gunboats they would have had more space and time to properly identify the airliner rather than feel the need to act immediately to what they thought was a fast approaching threat at short range.
For his defense of Pol Pot there’s nothing so vile as his article Distortions at Fourth Hand baulking at the idea that genocide was occurring in Cambodia, and implying that the deaths being reported were similar to France after its liberation from Nazi Germany where the former French Resistance executed a number of those who collaborated with the Nazis. All this while 2 million or so Cambodians were being mass murdered by Pol Pot.
Ann Coulter has lamented that the New York Times was not bombed and calls for the execution of people to intimidate liberals.
Whatever foolishness that Noam Chomsky may engage in or may not, it does not come close to Coulter’s calling for violence and intimidation. Perhaps a comparison to a more run of the mill right wing asshole like Charles Krauthhammer would be in order.
I haven’t read much Chomsky, but I have read quite a bit about Krashen, and I’ve heard the exact same accusations leveled at him, too.
In fact, you could replace every instance of “Chomsky” in the paragraph you wrote with “Krashen” and that would be a concise summary of all the anti-Krashen arguments I’ve heard.
You may be right about the reactions to Stephen Krashen. I don’t know anything about his theories. He was apparently largely unknown back when I was studying linguistics. My reactions to Chomsky come from reading his books and articles and the books and articles of other linguists who were debating various issues with him.