I’ve recently “discovered” Noam Chomsky and have really liked most of his work.
He rarely is presented in the Mainstream media because his viewpoints are often considered radical or extreme. However, most of the arguments he makes do have concrete evidence to support them.
However, I also want to see other peoples view point on Chomsky.
Do you agree with Chomsky at all? Is he too focused on particular issues?
What say you?
I don’t know much about his politics, but it’s worth mentioning that the Chomsky hierarchy is standard material in most undergraduate computer science programs.
Sorry for not making it clear, I’d like to hear your opinions on politics mostly, but you can also mention your point of view on his career on linguistics
Chomsky is a spectacular example of a person whose mastery in one subject area (linguistics in this case) does not confer any expertise in another (his completely nutty political manifestos.) Unfortunately, he has thus far completely failed to realize this, and remains thoroughly convinced of his own brilliance.
I think his politics are extreme. I was dragged to one of his lectures in the early 2000s and fell asleep. He also reminds me of one my most annoying law school profs. I’m sure he sounds great on paper but he was a terrible lecturer (and the acoustics at the church didn’t help).
However…I’m happy he (and dear frothing Professor Boyle) are out there offering their perspective and I admit without shame that they are far more scholarly and well-respected in their fields than I will ever be.
That just shows that he’s in touch with reality. The NYT referred to him as the most important intellectual alive. And he is a tenured professor at MIT. Either one of those wuld convince me that I was brilliant.
I really liked studying linguistics in college and did well in my classes. I would really have to did deep to grasp a lot of Chompsky’s concepts. I find his “extreme” politics interesting and believable, but then I tend to be very far to the left and remember too much about the Vietnam War. I get lost listening to him though.
Yeah, he is very deep and has sources rarely mentioned by mainstream media.
Here, you can find a complete, entertaining and easy to understand documentary on Chomsky’s political views, and is more recent than his more classical viewpoints, quite fun IMO:
I first came across him in relation to linguistics. In that field he is (was) an iconoclast. I don’t know much about his political views, other than that he is regarded as extreme left. Basically I like him for his strong defence of science during the times when it was fashionable to dismiss a lot of the scientific method.
Well, FWIW, many (if not most) of his sources are from the mainstream publications. But, often they are articles that didn’t get examined much in the general press.
I wonder how many of his critics have actually read a single one of his publications. I find that most political commentators are not nearly as meticulous in their citations as he is.
I began reading Chomsky in high school, starting with Manufacturing Consent, and then moving to some of his foreign policy books. At the time I thought he made some incisive critiques and that his arguments were generally well-supported.
A decade or so later, I have quite a different opinion. Manufacturing Consent is probably his best work, and most of the credit for that goes to Edward Herman. His foreign policy work is pretty poor. Chomsky is a polemicist. He isn’t as bad as Ann Coulter or something, but he’s no Marilyn Young (or even Howard Zinn). He is rarely outright dishonest, but he definitely bends the facts as far as they can be bent without breaking. If he can make two plausible inferences from evidence, he will make the one that best fits his argument. He constantly builds straw men of his opponents, failing to grapple with the real opposing views out there.
Just like it’s hard to spot a case of selective quoting when you haven’t read the entire work, it’s hard to see Chomsky’s spin when he’s not talking about something you know a lot about. I advise the following experiment: pick some subject about which Chomsky has written but on which you haven’t read his work. Read a few of the widely respected books on that subject from whatever political perspective you like–but choose books that are serious academic works. Something written by a tenured historian would be best. Then read Chomsky. It just immediately becomes clear how he selectively chooses facts and ignores others to string together the most extreme argument he can make.
I agree that “mastery” in one area doesn’t necessary confer expertise in another, but I feel that that every person should be able to express their political views, just as every person should be able to vote. Few people would listen to Chomsky’s “nutty political manifestos” if they were simply the ramblings of a lunatic, as you imply. But he makes sense in many of the things he says. Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean he’s crazy.
Is Chomsky really credible as a linguist? I’ll admit I’m not close to being an expert in the field. But I have read about some of his ideas and, from what I understood of them, I haven’t been too impressed. How many of his ideas are proven as science as opposed to just articulate philosophy?
Picked up one of his political screeds, saw gross abuse of scare quotes, could not continue. I cannot take seriously anyone who relies on scare quotes so heavily.
He is arguably the most influential linguist of the 20th century. He’s certainly up there. Every student of linguistics reads his works and knows his theories.
As ultrafilter pointed out upthread, his work on formal grammars is considered fundamental in computer science (though I don’t know if it’s actually required for undergraduate degrees – it seems to me these days that undergrad CS programs are now focused on churning out braindead rote programmers with little actual knowledge of computer science, but that’s a rant for another day.)
Right, I’ll clarify my statement to acknowledge his brilliance as a linguist. Political thinking, bad. Linguistic work, brilliant and important.
I took ‘Language Acquisition’ in college and my impression is he’s a douche bag.
Human beings are NOT inherently predisposed to certain grammatical structures and his weak ass attempts to prove it reek of confirmation bias.
But how are they as scientific theories? Are they historically important, working but improvable, or state of the art?
Start the thread, and I’ll comment.
I’d say historically important.
I hesitate to comment as my only relevant background is a few undergrad courses. It’s also hard to generalize because he has a couple of different important theories.
My sense is that he formed the basis for a lot of what linguistics does today, but that much of what he did has been modified or is no longer as dominant as it once was.
The wiki (which is pretty good, in my estimation) summaries are consistent with what I remember:
Here’s how wiki summarizes his work on phonology:
On generative grammar:
On Language hierarchy: