Is Noam Chomsky really that great?

[GenesisNemesis]

I haven't read any books by Chomsky, but it seems to me like he's just echoing what a lot of people have said. What makes him so great?

 

[bilby]

I don't think he is great at anything other than self-promotion; He has a number of fairly good ideas that have been successful in gaining acceptance amongst philosophers and linguists, but IMO these are mostly poorly evidenced hypotheses, which his supporters defend more on a religious basis than a scientific one.

I think he is a bit of a tosser, to be honest.

And if past experience is any guide, I expect to be lambasted for expressing this view.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Mediocre at best. But he did get his ideas out there and fired up opposition which in turn fires up debate.

 

[NobleSavage]

I've read some of his books. They are ok. He makes some good points.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, he's really that great.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

For what reasons?

 

[Sabine Grant]

For what reasons?

Since his academic contributions to the domain of Linguistics were mentioned, "he is really that great" as an MIT Faculty Member, Professor Emeritus teaching the philosophy of language, semantics, syntax and linguistic theory. I recall that whether it was me or my class peers, we would all dream of attending classes taught by Chomsky. That was a time when he was considered the top Linguist. I suppose that folks who believe they can accurately judge his "greatness" in the field of Linguistics must have at least equal academic formation to his. That is why I will not venture in evaluating it here. 3 years as an undergraduate with a major in Linguistics would not qualify me.

Politically speaking, he is a controversial figure due to his far left profile. "far left" in the US but pretty much representative of what we call the "Left" in my country. As a result, his political activism has never bothered me or shocked me or led me to feel that I am in a position to grade his activism on any given scale viewed through an American mind.

 

[bilby]

For what reasons?

Since his academic contributions to the domain of Linguistics were mentioned, "he is really that great" as an MIT Faculty Member, Professor Emeritus teaching the philosophy of language, semantics, syntax and linguistic theory. I recall that whether it was me or my class peers, we would all dream of attending classes taught by Chomsky. That was a time when he was considered the top Linguist. I suppose that folks who believe they can accurately judge his "greatness" in the field of Linguistics must have at least equal academic formation to his. That is why I will not venture in evaluating it here. 3 years as an undergraduate with a major in Linguistics would not qualify me.

This is exactly what I mean about his support being more religious than scientific in nature; It is nicely 'truthy' to suggest that he can only be judged on his greatness by those who are highly qualified, but it really isn't true - of Chomsky or of anyone else.

I can't carry a tune in a bucket; but that does not disqualify me from recognising that Luciano Pavarotti is a great singer, and that Justin Bieber is not.

If a person proposes hypotheses in linguistics that are incompatible with established theories in different, but related, fields - zoology, evolutionary biology, neurology, etc., then it is reasonable to say that he needs to put up or shut up - he needs to do the hard yards to demonstrate to us all that we are wrong, and he is right. Chomsky does not do this; he does not attempt to do this; and instead he appears to foster a personality cult, wherein his students and followers make apparently reasonable, but actually absurd, claims that only the great leader is qualified to judge the great leader.

I call bullshit. If he can't explain his ideas in linguistics such that a person with a Bachelor's Degree in lingusitics can at least judge their merits, then he isn't a lot of use to academia, even if he is correct. I could never have originated Einstein's theory of relativity, but I can understand it well enough to determine that Einstein was a great Physicist.

"You are not advanced enough; you couldn't understand it" is what religions say to their flocks; it is directly in opposition to how science is done. If that is all the Chomskyites have got, then they have nothing; If they have more than that to offer, then they should recognise that leading with an argument that neatly encapsulates the logical fallacy of argument from authority undermines their position, rather than supporting it; and they should present something rather more compelling.

So far, all I am getting is "Chomsky is great because he is; and nobody else (including his most vociferous supporters) is smart enough to even understand him".

 

[beero1000]

I haven't read any books by Chomsky, but it seems to me like he's just echoing what a lot of people have said. What makes him so great?

Are you sure he's echoing what a lot of people have said and not the other way around? Chomsky did his main academic work in the 50s and 60s. That was long enough ago for his ideas to become well-known and when he reiterates them today people think 'well everyone knows that!'.

It is safe to say that he revolutionized linguistics and in the academic sense he is really that great. As for his political activism and philosophy, he is certainly not afraid to express his opinions. That doesn't necessarily make his opinions outside his academic specialty any more relevant than another informed person's.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

All I know about Chomsky is that he has a really annoying manner of speaking, to the point that I can't listen for more than a few minutes before turning away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's a linguist that says things the left likes to hear so they think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

He's just a typical scientist way outside his field--not worth much.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky's major original work is divided into 2 areas, linguistics and as a dissident of US policy. He also has a great deal of knowledge of science, philosophy, and history.

His major work in linguistics occurred in the 1950's. He transformed the way in which language was looked at. Prior to Chomsky language was believed to be something people learned and remembered the way one learns history. But he introduced the idea of an innate language capacity. The field of linguistics has moved in many directions since the 1950's and today Chomsky is one voice amongst many voices and many of his ideas are minority ideas. He doesn't believe language evolved as a means of communication for example. He believes it evolved as a means of thinking first and was used as a means of communication second.

His work as a dissident to US policy is much more accessible than his work in linguistics but, at least in the US, they are minority opinions as well. His methods are pretty simple and his language is plain. He generally just explains what so-called US leaders are really doing as opposed to what they say they are doing. So he describes Vietnam and Iraq as acts of US aggression. This is opposed to official US language, which describes these events as acts of defense. Whether he is right or wrong in his opinions is a matter for many many threads but millions around the world, many more outside of the US than within, are in full agreement with them. He is seen a singular voice of reason and morality in a sea of lies and deception. He is highly respected for his honesty, morality, and skill to explain complicated matters in simple terms.

 

[Samhain]

Chomsky's major original work is divided into 2 areas, linguistics and as a dissident of US policy. He also has a great deal of knowledge of science, philosophy, and history.

His major work in linguistics occurred in the 1950's. He transformed the way in which language was looked at. Prior to Chomsky language was believed to be something people learned and remembered the way one learns history. But he introduced the idea of an innate language capacity. The field of linguistics has moved in many directions since the 1950's and today Chomsky is one voice amongst many voices and many of his ideas are minority ideas. He doesn't believe language evolved as a means of communication for example. He believes it evolved as a means of thinking first and was used as a means of communication second.

His work as a dissident to US policy is much more accessible than his work in linguistics but, at least in the US, they are minority opinions as well. His methods are pretty simple and his language is plain. He generally just explains what so-called US leaders are really doing as opposed to what they say they are doing. So he describes Vietnam and Iraq as acts of US aggression. This is opposed to official US language, which describes these events as acts of defense. Whether he is right or wrong in his opinions is a matter for many many threads but millions around the world, many more outside of the US than within, are in full agreement with them. He is seen a singular voice of reason and morality in a sea of lies and deception. He is highly respected for his honesty, morality, and skill to explain complicated matters in simple terms.

I don't know much about his linguistics but I often find that criticisms of his political views are mostly nebulous in nature. Most people don't go far beyond simply stating that he's just some kooky leftist without actually expressing why, specifically, his views are kooky. He has pretty extensive knowledge on foreign policy, but perhaps his best political work was done during the Cold War era speaking out against the atrocities that the US was engaging in within Latin America. One other thing I will say about him is that his political books are extremely well sourced, something his critics seem to lack in comparison, choosing to instead mostly refer to attacks on his manner of speech or whatever other inane nonsense in order to avoid addressing the actual content of his writing. He has done himself some disservice over the years with pretty extreme statements and I have disagreed with him at times over various issues, but IMO, yes, he's worth listening to, probably more so in a general foreign and domestic policy sense than any other single person. Other individuals might have a better grasp about specific regions than he does, but few people are able to articulate so well about so many regions and our involvement in them so well. If you find that often he merely "says the same things that other people are saying" then chances are that those other people saying those things probably heard them from Chomsky first. He's certainly more knowledgeable about current global affairs than anyone on this board and a lot of that has to do with the fact that he spends massive amounts of time reading about these subjects from an array of sources and has the ability to retain knowledge and where he heard it and source it if necessary. I have yet to see a single person that is critical of Chomsky that I would consider to be better informed than he is.

 

[barbos]

I had to read wikipedia page on him.
Looks like he is an linguist behind unproven but rather obvious/unoriginal hypothesis of "innate linguistic abilities", who wrote and promoted extensively on it.
His ideas not only are not universally accepted but criticized too. And these are merely ideas/hypothesises not proven theories. He gets and 'A' on persistence/selfpromotion and 'C+' on substance from me.

It seems his fame comes mostly from his political stance.

 

[Sabine Grant]

For what reasons?

Since his academic contributions to the domain of Linguistics were mentioned, "he is really that great" as an MIT Faculty Member, Professor Emeritus teaching the philosophy of language, semantics, syntax and linguistic theory. I recall that whether it was me or my class peers, we would all dream of attending classes taught by Chomsky. That was a time when he was considered the top Linguist. I suppose that folks who believe they can accurately judge his "greatness" in the field of Linguistics must have at least equal academic formation to his. That is why I will not venture in evaluating it here. 3 years as an undergraduate with a major in Linguistics would not qualify me.

This is exactly what I mean about his support being more religious than scientific in nature; It is nicely 'truthy' to suggest that he can only be judged on his greatness by those who are highly qualified, but it really isn't true - of Chomsky or of anyone else.

I disagree. Whether it be his works on Language Acquisition, Universal Grammar or Generative Grammar,his critics have been highly educated academics. But feel free to demonstrate your point that "it really isn't true" by presenting your own critic of...let me see... how about Nativism in relation to his theory on Language Acquisition by starting a thread in the SD Forum.

Since I am certainly more aware than you can ever be of which degree of knowledge I acquired during my undergrad studies, I stand by my statement quoted above.

I can't carry a tune in a bucket; but that does not disqualify me from recognising that Luciano Pavarotti is a great singer, and that Justin Bieber is not.

Equating the ability to identify who is a great singer and who is not to evaluating Chomskys' works in the COMPLEX domain of Linguistics is a very silly analogy.

If a person proposes hypotheses in linguistics that are incompatible with established theories in different, but related, fields - zoology, evolutionary biology, neurology, etc., then it is reasonable to say that he needs to put up or shut up - he needs to do the hard yards to demonstrate to us all that we are wrong, and he is right. Chomsky does not do this; he does not attempt to do this; and instead he appears to foster a personality cult, wherein his students and followers make apparently reasonable, but actually absurd, claims that only the great leader is qualified to judge the great leader.

I am curious....but you speak as if you have studied the field of Linguistics and have vast knowledge of Chomsky's works and research and his responses to his critics. Unless you are familiar with his responses to his various critics, how can you establish that " he does not do that"? As to this "we" and this "us all", do you actually believe that there is a vast number of folks who care one bit about whether Chomskian theories hold any water? Those who have cared are his peers. Because it is their academic domain.

Chomsky is not "great leader" , he is a renown linguist whose theories rose controversies among his peers. None of them are "great leaders" either.

I call bullshit. If he can't explain his ideas in linguistics such that a person with a Bachelor's Degree in lingusitics can at least judge their merits, then he isn't a lot of use to academia, even if he is correct. I could never have originated Einstein's theory of relativity, but I can understand it well enough to determine that Einstein was a great Physicist.

Well, good for you! As far as I am concerned and considering the reality that his theories are now pretty old, since then more research has been supporting some of his points and other research has been counter arguing them. Basically a situation where Linguistics remain an evolving scientific study where there is no consensus at this point whether Chomskyan theories are wrong or right. Consensus would mean that the majority of his peers would have concluded by now that they are wrong. But that is not the case.There is a persistent divide.It is clear to me that that you do not give greater credibility to his peers who are BEST equipped to be his critics. I know for a fact that I am not part of the best equipped. Considering that the best equipped are researchers in the field of Linguistics. You are free to believe that such complex research does not necessitate a solid academic knowledge in the domain of Linguistics. And frankly if I need an educated critic of Chomskyan theories, I am going to get data from an academically credited researcher such as Joan Bresnan or Kaplan. With the advantage of being able to also reach French linguists such as Culioli ( I cannot believe he is still teaching at his age! We were gratified by his leading a seminar in the early 80's at my University, in Nice, France) or Catherine Fuchs who heads the Department of Research at the Sorbonne.

"You are not advanced enough; you couldn't understand it" is what religions say to their flocks; it is directly in opposition to how science is done. If that is all the Chomskyites have got, then they have nothing; If they have more than that to offer, then they should recognise that leading with an argument that neatly encapsulates the logical fallacy of argument from authority undermines their position, rather than supporting it; and they should present something rather more compelling.

I am not sure how you could interpret my comments to actually mean the above. I made the honest assessment that even as an undergrad student, I would not venture in drawing conclusions and that because I am not part of the BEST equipped Linguists who consistently conduct research. The fact I took a major in Linguistics does not make me a Linguist researcher.

So far, all I am getting is "Chomsky is great because he is; and nobody else (including his most vociferous supporters) is smart enough to even understand him".

Not sure why you concluded I would be one of his "most vociferous supporters". I have a neutral position. You planted a touch of irony in this thread by having stated ,

And if past experience is any guide, I expect to be lambasted for expressing this view

When you are the party who lambasted me for stating my honest assessment conveying that I personally would not draw any conclusions despite of my field of studies and that close to 40 years ago. Then , you develop further(more like a diatribe) on denying the validity of peers being the parties who can make educated assessments. I suppose that also eliminates the value given to the term "peer reviewed". Mind you that it is never about a vague other people out there but PEERS. Need I to explain what peer means in the context of "peer review"?

 

[Valjean]

In academic fields one does need a certain degree of expertise to appreciate the beauty and elegance of a theory. Most people on the street, for example, could not intelligently compare and contrast Everett's vs Bohr's interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Chomsky's current fame/infamy is based on his political views, particularly in American history and foreign policy. His books are irksome because they upset the mythos of America as an enlightened and beneficent city on a hill. They lay out inconvenient and unbecoming truths of history. They disturb our patriotic ego-identity.

Critics may hem and haw, but Chomsky's assertions are buttressed by his famously voluminous footnotes and references. His books are expertly researched. He's not often easy to counter.

I agree, he is a poor public speaker, though, and in recently years has developed a tendency toward shocking assertions that have the appearance of publicity ploys.

He's considered one of the world's preeminent intellectuals and his speeches are always sellouts.

 

[untermensche]

I had to read wikipedia page on him.
Looks like he is an linguist behind unproven but rather obvious/unoriginal hypothesis of "innate linguistic abilities", who wrote and promoted extensively on it.
His ideas not only are not universally accepted but criticized too. And these are merely ideas/hypothesises not proven theories. He gets and 'A' on persistence/selfpromotion and 'C+' on substance from me.

It seems his fame comes mostly from his political stance.

His ideas on an innate language capacity may seem unoriginal to you but they completely turned the discipline of linguistics on it's head when he introduced them.

But his work in linguistics is extremely complicated and it really takes somebody who has devoted a lot of time to the study of linguistics to understand them.

His political ideas are accessible to anybody. He doesn't surround them with emotional rhetoric or jargon. He speaks and writes on politics in language anybody can understand. He is a strong proponent of many ideas from Anarchists, like the idea that human hierarchies should be strongly challenged and must prove they are necessary before they should be considered legitimate.

For many Americans born into a society highly structured along hierarchical lines, many of these ideas can't even be understood. That is one reason why Chomsky is far more popular in Europe and South America than he is in the US.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is he great at what?

 

[untermensche]

I don't know much about his linguistics but I often find that criticisms of his political views are mostly nebulous in nature. Most people don't go far beyond simply stating that he's just some kooky leftist without actually expressing why, specifically, his views are kooky.

In my experience you mainly find opinions like this from people born and raised in the US. Many who have never been outside of the US. There is a mythology that people raised in the US are taught. It is taught that the US is a moral nation and it's leaders behave morally. This is complete nonsense however. So when Chomsky demonstrates how immorally the US is behaving those truths crash head on into this mythology, which is actually believed by many. So the individual is left with a choice, dismiss Chomsky or dismiss the mythology. Many choose to simply dismiss Chomsky out of hand with no rational explanation rather than dismiss the childish mythology. The US is a highly religious nation. It's people are very good at holding onto childish mythologies.

He has pretty extensive knowledge on foreign policy, but perhaps his best political work was done during the Cold War era speaking out against the atrocities that the US was engaging in within Latin America. One other thing I will say about him is that his political books are extremely well sourced, something his critics seem to lack in comparison, choosing to instead mostly refer to attacks on his manner of speech or whatever other inane nonsense in order to avoid addressing the actual content of his writing.

I would say his political work is as valid today as it ever was. But earlier, like during the Reagan years and all that aggression aimed at Central and South America, he was more alone. Today, and I would say in some measure because of him, there are many voices that rise in opposition to US aggression. His opinions stand out less because many more share and express them. Before the invasion of Iraq for example millions rose world wide in opposition.

 

[dismal]

He may be a brilliant and inspiring linguist (how does one even judge such things?) but since when does anyone really give much of a crap about linguists?

As a political commentator he's pretty droning, uninspiring, unoriginal and predictable. The best that can be said about him is he is consistent. He is against most of that the US does even when Democrats are president.