

Ask HN: What do you think about Noam Chomsky? - wsieroci

Hi,<p>Simple question: what do you think about Noam Chomsky?<p>Best,
Wiktor
======
blacksqr
I have yet to see Chomsky's arguments disproved on the facts. When you parse
his detractors' criticisms, they can always be paraphrased not as: "your
conclusions are wrong because your facts are wrong," but as "your conclusions
are wrong because their implications are unthinkable."

~~~
dalke
What's your views on Chomsky's defense of the Khmer Rouge, and his argument
that the evidence for the Cambodian genocide was "third-rate propaganda"?

~~~
blacksqr
If you took my comment to mean that I think Chomsky is always right, then you
have misunderstood. I have simply noted that the enthusiastic "debunkings" of
Chomsky that I have come across have been of very low quality, and often
include explicit pleading to trust those in power, instead of pointing out
where he has actually gone wrong in his arguments.

As to your specific question, a few seconds googling produced this:
bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2010/07/chomskys-views-on-khmer-rouge-
distorted.html?m=1

Myself, I take no position. Let the debate continue. Let the facts be known.

~~~
dalke
I phrased it poorly - I was in a rush to get to dinner with friends, and
didn't think my response all the way through.

I was thinking more of the detractors of Chomsky's views in this instance. As
I understand it, Chomsky's view is that, based on the facts available at the
time, there wasn't enough information to make the conclusion that genocide had
occurred. His detractors insisted that there was.

That's why this isn't really an issue of "letting the facts be known", but of
the evaluation of the reliability of the evidence available at the time.

The link you pointed to is consistent with my analysis. Consider the full
quote starting "If a serious study of the impact of Western imperialism on
Cambodian peasant life is someday undertaken...". I take it to imply either
that the published work about the genocide, based on interviews with refugees,
was 1) not "serious", or 2) not relevant because it didn't take into account
the 'impact of Western imperialism' in its analysis. Overall he's saying that
at that time we don't really know enough to draw a conclusion different than
the current international consensus.

You can see in the later quote that Chomsky, observes that international
experts had "concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands"
and of the "extreme unreliability of refugee reports." "We do not pretend to
know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments."

He's saying there wasn't enough to be able to determine the "facts."

While his detractors at the time judged there was enough believable evidence
to show that the numbers of murders was much higher, and that the refugee
reports were sufficiently reliable.

I therefore can't categorize his detractors in this case as asserting
"[Chomsky's] conclusions are wrong because their implications are
unthinkable", so offer it as a counter-example to your original, broad
statement.

~~~
blacksqr
Thanks for your clarification. I admit my statement was made broadly, for
rhetorical purposes.

But in this instance, his detractors are not criticizing his interpretation of
available evidence, they brand him, despite his words, as an apologist for Pol
Pot and an excuser of genocide.

I think this is consistent with my larger point that the arguments made
against him are of low quality and not fact-based.

~~~
dalke
You are right in that I'm reacting to your broad statements, made for
rhetorical purposes. I'll point out though that you've changed the topic. His
detractors in the 1970s, who argued that Chomsky minimized the extent of the
Cambodian massacre, did not justify their "low quality arguments" (as you term
them now) by saying that the implications of Chomsky being right were
unthinkable.

What is "unthinkable" about the idea that there were only a few thousand
murders, rather that a genocide of 1-3 million people?

I am not referring to detractors who claim he is/was an apologist for the
Khmer Rouge. I am only referring to those detractors who in the 1970s argued
that Chomsky was wrong in greatly discounting the information from Ponchaud's
"Cambodia: Year Zero" and Barron and Paul's "Murder of a Gentle Land".

------
wturner
When I was a kid the internet wasn't available so I would always try and seek
out weird ideas on my own. I discovered Chomsky's views reading a Rolling
Stone issue that featured an interview with him.

I think his pointing out of government and corporate cultural assumptions are
fine and generally true but his underline philosophy of 'libertarian
socialism' I think is just divorced from the real world.

I used to have one of his interviews with David Barsamian on a cassette tape (
I'm not sure of the date ), but I remember Chomsky saying in response to a
question about his societal vision that he believed "skills shouldn't confer
power". In short if you have a special talent or skill it shouldn't give you
any social leverage. I don't disagree with that but I will tell you one thing.
The world will never, and I mean never ever "work" like that short of the
personable interactions between close friends and family. To that regard I
simply don't see any utility in Chomsky's social philosophy other than it
being a foundation to see the corruption of those he critiques a bit more
clearly.

So that's my only disagreement with him. I do think muckrakers do the world a
service and he has played his role well in unveiling the ideological
assumptions of a figure-head and pundit driven media world.

Beyond that, to me he's just another privileged academic who has had the
pleasure of traveling the world and saying a bunch of smart things.

------
mrfusion
I recently watched his movie "manufacturing consent" and was surprisingly
disappointed. It seemed kind of disjoint with no solid message and
unfortunately it was boring to watch to boot.

I really think corporate control of media, and media bias, and how it affects
our society is a really important topic that needs its own easy to digest
documentary, like black fish, or an inconvenient truth. Something that will
popularize the issue, and explain the problems to people who normally wouldn't
be interested.

~~~
tentoo12
Fwiw, it's not his movie. It's named after a book he wrote with Edward Herman.
The documentary was made by two Canadians, presumably as an attempt to
communicate the ideas from the book via film.

------
dalke
That's a simple question with many complex answers, including those with very
strong opinions both for and against.

Personally, I'm philosophically inclined towards emergent models of
linguistics rather than Chomsky's universal grammar, but I have barely the
ability to write Pirahã, much less go into a detailed discussion of the
current naturist/nurturist debate.

So your question might be a bit more specific in order to get the answers
you're looking for.

------
atmosx
I hold him in high regard for the clarity of his thinking. He is a breath of
fresh air when it comes to _pundits_.

------
ericdenver
Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist,
logician, political commentator and activist. Sometimes described as the
"father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic
philosophy.

