
The Chomsky Puzzle - never-the-bride
http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Chomsky-Puzzle-Piecing/237558
======
abalone
The whole premise of this article is flawed. There is nothing divisive or
puzzling about pursing intellectual work and trying to make the world a better
place. The only puzzle is how he finds the energy to do it all.

It also didn't really convey just how critical the scientific community is of
Wolfe's take on linguistics. There's a pretty good takedown here:
[http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-
sludge-a...](http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-sludge-at-
bottom-of-barel.html)

~~~
burkini
"It also didn't really convey just how critical the scientific community is of
Wolfe's take on linguistics."

Uh, the article literally has a link to the takedown you posted. I agree
though, the premise of the article is flawed.

------
readymade
As the foundational figure in modern Linguistics Chomsky has had an outsized
role in shaping the field, some of it good and some bad. IMHO the usefulness
of mainstream generative grammar has waned since the 70s or so in terms of its
applicability to engineering and empirical rigor. But it remains dominant, in
part due to his influence and the logical conclusions one draws from a strong
interpretation of Universal Grammar. Since much of that foundation is
ultimately philosophical, there are bound to be challenges from the field now
and again, and acolytes of the Chomskyan school are likely to attack them
ferociously. It will probably be a few decades before there's a major shift.

------
pastProlog
The subtitle is "Piecing together a celebrity scientist".

A celebrity?

I've seen him interviewed once on Charlie Rose.

In May 2002 CNN put him on with Bill Bennett.

In 1986 he debated Boston university president John Silber on local Boston TV.

How is he a celebrity?

He mentioned in a speech once how someone on NPR wanted to talk to him, and
how the higher-ups at NPR canceled and then limited his appearance, as he was
apparently banned.

He also was prevented by the IDF from attending a talk at Birzeit university
in the West bank, something he said hadn't happened (being refused admittance
to a country he was to give a unievrsity talk to) since he tried to enter
Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Even The Nation has spiked positive reviews of his books.

Someone with so little exposure on US airwaves over the decades is not a
celebrity.

~~~
kbenson
Perhaps this[1] is what you are looking for. 165 credits as himself on
different programs. 155 in the last 20 years. Currently in no less than 8
documentary productions that are in stages from post-production to nearing
release. For comparison, Neil deGrasse Tyson only has 83 credits as
himself[2]. I think that makes a good case that he's a "celebrity" scientist,
as I certainly consider Tyson one. Both are on the short list of active
scientists that I would expect random people to have at least heard of, even
if they aren't sure who they are or where they heard of them.

1: [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/)

2: [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/)

~~~
pastProlog
>> Someone with so little exposure on US airwaves over the decades is not a
celebrity.

> [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/)
> 165 credits as himself on different programs. 155 in the last 20 years.

Well this makes my point. Let me look at the earliest ten.

Third from bottom is UK. Fourth from the bottom is a Canadian documentary.
Sixth and seventh from the bottom are Canadian. Eighth from bottom is
Australian. Ninth from bottom is the UK. Tenth from bottom is UK.

Second and fifth from bottom appear to be musical programs, not sure of the
country.

Which leaves the earliest, Chomsky's 1969 discussion with William F. Buckley.
So 1969 to 1996 that's one credit.

If you look at the other credits, many of them are for non-American programs,
or very independently made films (not on the US airwaves as I said).

More recent documentaries like "Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy?" are made by
Europeans.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has been on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN etc. much more than
Chomsky has in the past decade. He is much more of a US celebrity.

~~~
kbenson
> Well this makes my point. Let me look at the earliest ten.

That... seems like an odd choice, when the question is whether he's a
celebrity _now_. He could have had _no_ exposure until a few years ago and
still be a celebrity, so I'm not sure why looking at his oldest media
appearances is relevant.

Maybe you would prefer google trends?[1] For a real treat, change it from US
to world wide. Chomsky is a global name, NGD is more of a US phenomenon. NGD
has eclipsed Chomsky in recent times, but event at half or more of the current
exposure NGD has, I think that points towards a celebrity status.

> Neil deGrasse Tyson has been on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN etc. much more than
> Chomsky has in the past decade. He is much more of a US celebrity.

That doesn't actually prove that Chomsky _isn 't_ a celebrity though, as it's
still possible for NGD to be more famous and for Chomsky to be a celebrity.
Also, I think you have a fairly narrow view of what "celebrity" is, if it's
mostly informed by television exposure. Sure, television is a quick way to
celebrity, but there are other ways (and those used to be the only ways).
Einstein was a celebrity. Stephen King _is_ a celebrity. Being well known is
the definition, not being an entertainment personality.

1:
[https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm...](https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F0b78hw,%2Fm%2F06b26l)

~~~
dmix
You don't need to defend yourself, you're earlier post including Imdb links
were sufficient. Chomsky is a celebrity scientist. Pretty much everyone who
knows anything about him knows that.

------
dmh2000
Whenever I encounter the Chomsky Language Hierarchy in programming or Noam
Chomsky talking politics on TV, radio, or print, I always ask myself 'is it
the same guy?'. Only because the topics are usually so disparate.

------
joe_the_user
Allegations that Chompsky was unfair to Dan Everett?

Dan Everett is a primarily media-phenomena and fraud (in a whole variety of
ways). His claims about the Pirahã has been debunked at this point. The main
thing is that Everett used the tactic of presenting himself as an outsider
challenging a "great" man (who naturally has many enemies). In considering
Everett's dubious claims, take into account that Everett isn't an expert on
tropical languages but a missionary who got an impression of one language and
leverage this into an entire career.

~~~
k2xl
Where have you read that his claims were wrong and have been debunked?

~~~
pastProlog
Everett himself debunked Everett. Originally he said Piraha was recursive.
Then he changed its mind and said it wasn't, thus, all of Chomsky's theories
are wrong. He learned to speak Piraha training to be a Christian missionary,
not as a linguist. His talk here was with a conservative author, not a
linguist.

~~~
k2xl
Everett was chair of the dept of languages, literatures and cultures at
Illinois State and former chair of the linguistics department at university of
pittsburg...

------
Tycho
"As a broad generalization, [my] stance in any controversy will be the
opposite of Chomsky's" \- Mencius Moldbug

Is Chomsky the archbishop of the Cathedral?

~~~
bbctol
Only in a bizarre conspiracy world where everyone who disagrees with someone
must be allied, even if a more logical explanation is just that your opinions
are terrible. So, the Moldbuggery answer is yes, absolutely.

~~~
Tycho
Well, to be fair, here we have a neutral media source calling Chomsky the most
important living intellectual. Seems to fit Moldbug's curious side-note.

~~~
tamana
Well, in a 35-yr-old quotation

~~~
Tycho
Fair point.

------
k2xl
Chomsky's personality reminds me Dijkstra - so full of themselves that they
don't entertain anyone challenging their ideas.

Take a look at how Chomsky writes emails, see his correspondance with Sam
Harris [https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-
discourse](https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse) \- the
arrogance in his reply to a genuine offer of conversation is staggering.

~~~
throwaway729
I don't really understand at all what that email exchange is supposed to
indicate.

Chomsky starts the entire chain and every subsequent email with some
equivalent of "we don't have enough common ground on these subjects to have a
reasonable conversation, so let's not have a stupid back-and-forth in which we
do nothing but loudly contradict each other's basically axiomatic
interpretations".

And then there's a lot of back-and-forth that's frustrating to everyone
involved (and particularly to the third party reading the exchange). It's
frustrating because Sam and Noam are talking past one another, and clearly
don't have enough common understanding to take part in a productive discourse,
and one party is trying _the entire time_ to just get out of the damned stupid
back-and-forth of nothing but mutual contradiction.

To me this reads like a very common occurrence at parties I attended in
college: two people who disagree, with one person trying to avoid a public
argument that's bound to be fruitless and irritating to all involved, and the
other one _insisting_ on having the argument anyways. I never had much
sympathy for the Sam character when the Noam character finally snapped and
told them to change the topic or fuck off.

 _> so full of themselves that they don't entertain anyone challenging their
ideas._

There's a _HUGE_ difference between realizing a particular conversation is
pointless and refusing to have any conversations with dissenters. The latter
is arrogance, but the former is an important social skill.

 _> to a genuine offer of conversation..._

1\. Noam's primary complaint is that he _doesn 't_ believe this is a genuine
offer of conversation, and that even if it were, he doesn't think the
conversation would be remotely productive.

2\. Noam has far more patience in this thread than I or most people would've
displayed. I probably wouldn't have replied beyond the second email with
anything other than "We obviously disagree on some pretty basic facts. Any
further conversation on this matter would therefore be fruitless to both of
us. Have a great day!"

~~~
k2xl
Realizing a particular conversation as pointless is dismissive if you aren't
open to attempting to understand other perspectives.

A religious person telling a scientist that a debate about religion with him
would be "pointless" is indeed dismissive. It may end up being pointless to
the people making the arguments but not necessarily for the listeners.

~~~
throwaway729
_> Realizing a particular conversation as pointless is dismissive if you
aren't open to attempting to understand other perspectives_

1\. Your original charge was that Noam is _arrogant_ , not that he is
_dismissive_. Dismissiveness and arrogance are not the same thing.

2\. Noam _isn 't_ dismissive in this particular. Refusing the reply to the
email or replying only with terse non-acknowledgements would be dismissive.
Spilling hundreds of words worth of ink to elucidate _why_ you don't want to
have a conversation is anything but dismissive.

3\. Charging Noam with being dismissive toward his critics is a different
claim with a different burden. It requires analyzing the preponderance of
evidence, not one specific case. Just because Noam is dismissive of one
particular critic doesn't mean that he's dismissive of his critics in general.

 _> A religious person telling a scientist that a debate about religion with
him would be "pointless" is indeed dismissive_

I fail to see how this is necessarily the case. For example, if the
scientist's point is to _change the religious person 's mind_, and the
religious person is firm in their faith, then the religious person isn't being
dismissive. On the contrary, the religious person is saving both parties from
a fruitless and frustrating endeavor.

 _> It may end up being pointless to the people making the arguments but not
necessarily for the listeners._

More analogous to Noam/Sam, if the scientist's point is to _demonstrate the
falseness of religious by disproving transubstantiation_ , and if the
religious person _explicitly said they do not believe in transubstantiation_ ,
then the religious person is well within reason to refuse an invitation,
because regardless of the outcome of the conversation, the end result won't be
informative to anyone.

3\. If the Scientist pushes for a debate even though the religious person is
not interested, he's most likely being a bit of jerk.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Funny because I thought Harris was quite dismissive "I don't appreciate your
tone" (!)

------
Kenji
Chomsky is a wonderful proof of the fact that it does not matter who the idea
comes from, what matters is the idea itself. I.e. you can be an expert on some
things and err on others. Nobody is an intellectual authority on all things.
Many scientists are wiser than to meddle in political affairs with broad
strokes and only stick to their topic of expertise.

~~~
dbingham
So, you're the intellectual authority on politics then, capable of declaring
with certainty that Noam's ideas in that arena are flawed?

~~~
Kenji
As you may have noticed, I precisely did not go into any details about
Chomsky's politics because I know how the large majority of HN thinks and it's
pretty much useless to reason about this here. The fact that his political
ideas are barely backed up with data speaks for itself. If you look at what he
writes, it is obvious that his view on history is strongly influenced by the
lens of his ideology. This is very unlike his work on grammars, which I
greatly appreciate. That is all I'm going to say about this. Judge for
yourself.

~~~
abalone
_> The fact that his political ideas are barely backed up with data speaks for
itself._

This is an objectively ridiculous assertion. His works are _extensively_ cited
with primary sources. He regularly has hundreds of footnotes per book.
_Manufacturing Consent_ and _Necessary Illusions_ are just two examples of a
scientific, ideology-free approach to political analysis. There he compares
and contrasts how the U.S. media covers similar international events -- by
state friends vs. foes -- and it is quite damning.

------
woodandsteel
Many years ago I read a New Yorker profile of Chomsky.
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/31/noam-
chomsky](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/31/noam-chomsky) I got the
strong impression he has autism, or at least is on the asperger's spectrum.

I think that's a real problem for his political views. Political philosophy is
about how you design a good society, and that means a society in which people
treat each other well. To do that you have to have a good understanding of
human psychology.

But people with Asperger's are very low in their psychological understanding
skills. With Chomsky, I get the impression that leads him to fall into a
simplistic moralism for explaining why people behave in good or bad ways.

~~~
Synaesthesia
I think you should read more Chomsky or watch some of his talks. His political
views are all based on pretty much common sense, and widely accepted moral
principles. He doesn't give any simplistic moralism for explaining why people
behave in good or bad ways. He acknowledges that human behaviour is very
complex and poorly understood. Actually be usually avoids explaining why
people act a certain way and instead just describes their actions.

I do think he has a powerful analytical brain and is very dry in his
descriptions, they are consciously unemotional and descriptive in nature.
However he has a real deep sympathy with the sufferer of his fellow man.

