> It's more like listening to Einstein (or Chomsky) on politics -- very good in one field, rather over-confident in another.
Chomsky is very careful to heavily reference and back up his political opinions, so I'm a little confused as to how he is over-confident in the field? I assume you simply disagree with him?
It must be noted that what Chomsky is famous for, his deep grammar, has never been shown to be anything more than a particularly elegant theory, not representative of actual real linguistics - and that is what he is good at, assembling beautiful arguments ultimately based on nothing. He's an extremely skillful rhetoritician and orator - but the acid test is, does this work?
I'm not informed enough about linguistics to be able to determine whether what you say is true or not, but it is certainly irrelevant to what we're actually discussing - Chomsky does supply evidence to back up his political claims.
Mmm yes, like I say, he's very good at being convincing and selective use of references is a part of that, but his conclusions are reheated anarcho-syndicalism, a system that was tried and failed in the 1930s. It doesn't matter how elegant your theories are - what matters is what actually happens when the rubber hits the road.
Just like a good (in the sense of skill) salesman can sell you a product you don't actually want by producing all the evidence you need...
Chomsky is very careful to heavily reference and back up his political opinions, so I'm a little confused as to how he is over-confident in the field? I assume you simply disagree with him?