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"?