

Noam Chomsky: Fake Linguist - anaphor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865339/posts?page=151

======
timscott
Wow, very powerful stuff. This article rapidly expands from indictment Noam
Chomsky as linguist to indictment of modern academia. As a parent about to pay
large sums to one of these institutions for my son's education, it depresses
me more than a little.

I don't know anything about linguistics, but the argument hangs together
pretty well. It's consonant with what I know about Chomsky as political
prophet and myth-maker.

I notice that this article, a decade old, also indicts science in general. The
author was perhaps ahead of his time:

[http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-
re...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-
changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong)

[http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-t...](http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-
think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble)

[http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-
feynman-201...](http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-
feynman-20131028,0,2450203.story#axzz2kxi4KsdQ)

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-
hiltzik-20131027,0,122...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-
hiltzik-20131027,0,1228881.column#axzz2j3BBiche)

[http://www.livescience.com/27262-psychology-studies-
question...](http://www.livescience.com/27262-psychology-studies-
questioned.html)

~~~
anaphor
Well, happily a lot of people are realizing that Chomsky's linguistic theories
(transformational generative grammar, universal grammar) are the scientific
equivalent of ptolemaic epicycles, i.e. overly complex nonsense used to
justify their own preconceptions. However he is still fairly influential in
syntax (and to a lesser extent phonology) which are two branches of
linguistics. Sadly his theories (and his name) get thrown around a lot more
than actual pioneering linguists like Edward Sapir (who only gets brought up
when people talk about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis).

Edit: see this LL post for an explanation of what I mean
[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2622](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2622)

~~~
brg
Chomsky was an early visionary, and his intuition was very good. I would
compare him more to Freud than to Ptolemaic astronomers. He started from a
single notion, and built a theory around it that was justified by anecdote.

But many of the tools and constructs that fell out of this theory are
important. Consider the work with grammar. CTF is equivalent to PDA, but much
easier to use conceptually.

~~~
anaphor
Well, you can't deny that he contributed some ideas that PLT people make use
of, but the question here is whether TGG is any good as a _scientific theory
of language_ and I think the answer is no. The reason I compared him to
Ptolemaic theorists is because he came up with some interesting mathematical
ideas, but he doesn't care about systematically collecting data and attempting
to falsify the theory. See:
[http://norvig.com/chomsky.html](http://norvig.com/chomsky.html)

