I’ve read some of his books and I found his arguments to be convincing, but I wasn’t really look to poke holes in his arguments either. I was just curious if anyone else could find holes in Chomsky’s logic.
What, specifically, in Chomsky’s thought do you mean to attack? His groundbreaking linguistic theory? His criticism of the media? Or his attacks on U.S. foreign policy?
I was thinking about his works on US foreign policy, but opinions on Chomsky’s view on the media would also be welcome.
I’ve always had a jaundiced view of Chomsky’s political views. His “Manufacturing Consent” is (IMHO) just a paranoid way of stating the obvious: some people have a lot of money and want to control things.
What he seems to imply (but never prove) is that these people have closely aligned agenda. What he does prove is that they can be in collusion, but that’s nothing surprising.
He’s surprised that U.S. papers wrote a lot about Pol Pot but relatively little about East Timor. Well, DUH! Doesn’t he understand WHY Americans want to read about how bad Cambodia is? It’s not a conspiracy; it’s giving people what they want.
I don’t know about his political views, but some of his linguistic theory is a bit ropey; specifically the assertion that the “deep structures” of language are innate. It’s a pretty bold claim for which he adduces a rag-bag of fairly weak evidence. For example, he asserts that children learn language with little or no reinforcemant, which is just not true. The claim that the deep structures are common to all languages has a bit more force, but it doesn’t in itself support the claim that they’re innate: there are certain basic claims which are common to all religions, but that doesn’t mean that religios belief is innate.
Take a look at “Manufacturing Consent” a two-part
video which summarizes many of his arguments.
As for him being full of shit, well, I’ve gotta go rent it again…
Noam Chomsky is simply another case that proves (as if further proof were necessary):
Just because a guy is brilliant in one area, it doesn’t follow that he has a clue about anything else.
Anyone who listens to Stephen Jay Gould OR George Will on the subject of baseball is nuts.
William Shockley is one of the most important technological geniuses of the past 100 years- it doesn’t follow that his theories on genetics and racial superiority are anything but crap.
And, while Noam Chomsky is one of the most brilliant and important linguists of all time, it doesn’t follow that his political rants hold a drop of water.
If you think that Chomsky was that all-fired great a linguist, you should read the following two books:
The Linguistics Wars by Randy Allen Harris
Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction by Pieter A. M. Seuren
From the mid-'60’s to the late '70’s, there were two major schools of generative grammar, the generative syntacticists and the generative semanticists. I won’t explain the difference because it would take a while and you can read about this in these books. The generative syntactists were Chomsky, a few of his students, and a handful of other linguists. The generative semanticists were, most prominently, George Lakoff, Paul Postal, James McCawley, and John Robert Ross, plus quite a few other professors and grad students in linguistics. (In the interests of full disclosure, I was a grad student in linguistics in the mid-'70’s. I’m now out of the field. I was more in agreement with the generative semanticists.)
The generative semanticists wanted to take the ideas of generative grammar in what seemed to them to be a logical direction. Chomsky didn’t like what they were doing, so he began promulgating ideas that sent generative grammar off in a completely different direction. The Harris book is a history of the battle between these two camps that attempts to play fair with both sides. The Seuren book is a history of linguistics that includes a final section that describes the disputes between these two schools and is much more critical of Chomsky.
Chomsky saw that the generative semanticists were influencing the course of research in generative grammar in ways that he didn’t like, so he published papers and books that advocated a different view. In my opinion both now and then, his arguments were largely garbage. Much of his reasoning was nothing but proof by assertion. The bothersome thing was that the generative syntacticists more or less won this argument, partly because nobody dared to question Chomsky’s bad argumentation, partly because the generative semanticists were disorganized, and partly because Chomsky and the generative syntacticists were better at playing academic politics and saw that their students got better jobs.
Chomsky is much overrated as being a great linguist. He re-organized other people’s ideas and he proposed a few good ideas himself, but mostly he created a great publicity campaign for himself. He’s a good at hype but bad at reasoning.
I usually would criticize Chomsky, because I disagree with much of what he says. However, since everyone has been attacking him so far, I might as well say a few good words in his favor.
Much of what Chomsky says, factually, is not all that debatable. For example, he says that while the US claims to fight for democracy, it often does the exact opposite. Very simple, the facts are on his side, unless you wish to argue that the US has never interfered with a regime democratically elected, or in the election process (an argument that nobody who knows anything about foreign policy would ever make). He says that the media tends not to say anything that would make the US look bad. Well that’s true. Why, however, is a different matter.
In addition, Chomsky’s arguments are peppered with quotes from what he calls “the elite” saying exactly what they want to do. He lets them speak for themselves, and it’s fairly disturbing.
I’ve read some Chomsky. I’m not knowledgable enough to question the details of his politics. But I am eternally grateful to anyone who intellingently and thoughtfully “pushes the envelope”; in his case the idea of anyone being able to question government , economics, politics, social forces, etc.
I think “leaders” of alternative ideas inevitably get a rough ride. I think of someone like Gloria Steinhem, for example, and how so many people thought she was a mislead radical. Yet years later she is amongst those to thank for forwarding women’s rights, something very few argue against.
No, he states just the opposite. A group of seperate and unrelated people can, without collulsion, act in a manner in witch the results make it appear that they are working together. When in accuality they a only working in their own individual best interest.
Wendell’s post is why this site is so valuable a resource.
Bless the specialists.
I’ve read a couple of his books, my favorite was What Uncle Sam Really Wants. It was concise, and had a lot of information. Too bad it wasn’t notated, sometimes I actually make use of those and read the sources. He did, however, mention the government papers where he got much of his information. So on the foreign policy part, I think his facts hold water.
But then, I agree with most of what he says, so I’m not the most objective source.
astorian wrote:
Another prominent example of this is Linus Pauling.
In Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin’s book Why the Jews, he has a section on Chomsky in the chapter “Non-Jewish Jews and Antisemitism” (pg. 67).
They write that beyond his rabid criticism of the United States and Israel, Chomsky even defended a French book claiming that the Holocaust was a fiction made up by Zionists.
They wrote: “Chomsky’s defense was subsequently published in the introduction to the book. Chomsky claims that he was merely defending the French professor’s academic freedom. But when Herbert Mitgang of the New York Times asked Chomsky to comment on the professor’s views, Chomsky noted that he had no views he wished to state. As Martin Peretz, editor of The New Republic has noted: ‘On the question, that is, as to whether or not six million Jews were murdered, Noam Chomsky apparently is an agnostic’”.
He did nothing of the kind. Chomsky has clarified on innumerable occasions that he was defending the author’s right to freedom of expression, not the contents of the book.
What an amazing criticism. Since I have not personally stated on the SDMB that the Armenian massacre occurred, am I an “agnostic” with respect to the Armenian massacre?
Chomsky has clarified that he believes the Holocaust occurred exactly as every sane person knows it did. Why this rumour has trailed around after him I can’t imagine.
I’m not Chomsky’s biggest fan, but this accusation is false.
i am a radical/revolutionary and an unabashed fan of Chomsky, so take this as you will.
i am also a pretty well-read individual, up on current events, and an independent thinker. and i can tell you that my understanding of how governments act was never fully clear until i read Chomsky. i think learning about world history using mainstream methods tends to produce more cognitive dissonance than real understanding. Chomsky has enabled me to understand the bigger picture in profound ways.
but he certainly had to convince me first. i read EVERYTHING in a critical voice and disagree to varying degrees with everything i read. consensus seems to be that we can’t argue with his facts (which are more than adequately notated–of course, only dissidents have to prove their statements. ever seen a mainstream newspaper notated?), so we have to look at his arguments.
i always found them to be very logical and grounded in commen sense, and i disagree with him less than with perhaps any other author i have read…hoping you understand how difficult it is for me (critical, cynical, skeptical) to fawn over somebody in this manner.
Wendell Wagner: more, please. Elaborate, if you will.
AHunter3 writes:
> Wendell Wagner: more, please. Elaborate, if you will.
I was about to ask the same thing of hapaXL. hapaXL, can you tell us where to start in reading Chomsky’s political writings? Can you tell us which of his works we should read and in which order? Are there any of his ideas you have some doubts about?
O.K., AHunter3. I’ll look through some books and give a fuller explanation in a day or so. I don’t have this fully organized in my mind at the moment.
Writing a book that denies the Holocaust is illegal in France.Memoire En Defense by Robert Faurisson is the book in question. Chomsky wrote a letter supporting the mans freedom of speech. The letter was then used as a foreword for the book without Chomsky’s permission. He complained about this but now says he regrets it as he feels strongly then the guy had a right to write his rubbish.
"Even to enter into the arena of debate on the question on whether the Nazi’s carried out such atrocities is already to loose one humanity." also "If anyone wants to refute Faurisson there is certainly no difficulty in doing so."
Quotes taken from the video of “Manufacturing Consent”.
I could not agree more and it is for that reason I love Chomskys stuff.