Democracy Now! Video Interview with Noam Chomsky on his new book!!!!

[Terran1212]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/148254

Video and audio streams + transcript there

Very interesting!

[Terran1212]

1. Iraqi PM is a fan of Noam Chomsky

Interesting tidbit from show...

[treegiver]

2. Chomsky sucks

Chomsky has done more to damage the left than just about anyone I can think of. And it's not just damage to the left. He's led Linguistics and Psychology through an idealist wilderness for the past 40+ years. Cartesian Linguistics and much of cognitive science are travesties of empirical inquiry. Education has suffered as a result of "The Whole Language Approach". Computer science struggles with the sterility of classical AI. And Chomsky owes much of his notoriety to the good populists at the NYT and the New York Review of Books.

Everywhere we're mired in dialectical idealism. Thanks, Noam.

[Imperialism Inc.]

3. Oh please

No one even knows who Noam Chomsky is among most of the general public. And he is very critical of the 'mainstream left' so they can't be giving many of his idea much prominence. You offer nothing in way of support of your thesis. No examples of how he has hurt the left. Your entire post is in reference to linguistic theories (which you mis-represent the current state of). What does that have to do with the left? The post you responded too didn't even say anything about Chomsky being anything in particular (good , bad , ugly) it just pointed out an observation from the video. So, it seems that all you have done is string together a bunch of non-sequiturs. You seem to be mired in cluelessness.

[treegiver]

4. Things aren't always what they seem

I'm quite prepared to support each claim I made. Where would you like to begin?

"In the welter of conflicting fanaticisms, one of the few unifying forces is scientific truthfulness..." Bertrand Russell

[Terran1212]

5. The part where Chomsky damages the left, I guess

[treegiver]

6. Chomsky damages the left

Chomsky re-opened the door to idealist speculation. The counter culture of the sixties soon wandered down the path of Jesus freakery and New Age delusion. Absent a common materialist perspective, the left degenerated into subjectivist balkanization as seen in the profusion of identity movements of various sorts. Can we pin it on Chomsky? I believe so. In particular I'd point to _Cartiesian Linguistics_, and his review of Skinner's _Verbal Behavior_.

[Terran1212]

7. A lot of big words; little substance

A little more specific, please?

[treegiver]

12. Substance

The substance is there; it's contained in the "big words". See below for a bit of explication.

[Jim Warren]

8. "Chomsky re-opened the door to idealist speculation"??????????

WTF are you talking about?

[treegiver]

10. Idealist speculation, etc.

Here's an example, chosen more or less at random: "Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation. "

There's no reason to believe that the "laws and principals" of language are "fixed". There's no reason to believe any of this. Chomsky certainly gives none. But, gosh, doesn't it just sound good. He gets away with this sort of thing because he's been declared the "greatest living intellectual" by dubious sources such as those mentioned above.

Chomsky frequently claims that his linguistic endeavors are independent of his political activities. Not so. His central idea is that we can subjectively identify "laws and principals". Truth is, for him, subjective. This notion led to the formation of "identity politics", which splintered the left into ineffective and frequently oppositional factions. We were treated to such absurdities as "Black Mathematics" and "Feminist Mathematics". which unsurprisingly bore no fruit.

It's worrisome that the right has, over the last few decades, adopted just this line of "reasoning". Evolution, e.g., is presented as "just an opinion" or "a religion like any other".

[hfojvt]

39. Your last line there

"Evolution, e.g., is presented as 'just an opinion' or 'a religion like any other'"

That is pretty sound metaphysics in my opinion. "The leading ideas of the 19th century, which claimed to do away with metaphysics, are themselves a bad, vicious, life-destroying type of metaphysics."

That is from the Christian socialist economist E.F. Schumacher in his 1973 book "Small is Beautiful".

The idea that "truth is subjective" certainly did not originate with Chomsky, nor get widely disseminated, except perhaps in the field of linguistics. I also had the understanding that his work "Manufacturing Consent" was more about how lies are propagated. If truth is subjective, then how can there be such a thing as a lie? Alot of that philosophy seems to come from Sartre and Einstein, who seemingly made all things relative.

[treegiver]

40. I'm sorry,

I can't bother with this.

[Imperialism Inc.]

42. Translation.

hfojvt is correct.

[treegiver]

43. That's it.

Evolution is a religion, just like hfojvt said. I admit it. The fundies are right. Science is fraud. Logic is a trick. Nothing makes sense. It's all just whatever hfojvt says. What do I do next boss?

[SpiralHawk]

19. This reads like a cut-and-paste jobbie from some boring academic paper

I'm just sayin...

[treegiver]

20. Yeah,

academic, intellectual = boooring.

Now that I've been put in my place, I'll just do whatever you say. What should I do boss?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. Have you ever read Chomsky... or seen him speak?

and if you did, was it before or after you formed this opinion?

[treegiver]

13. Yes to both.

First read Chomsky around 1970 (maybe earlier). I was part of the security detail for a speech he gave in the early 90's. I can give you a list of his books that I have on my shelf if you think that would be helpful.

The revision of my opinions took place over years, probably starting in 1987 after reading "Parallel Distributed Processing" Vol I and II.

Just to make one thing clear: It's not his analysis of the political situation that I disagree with.

If I had to point to the most useful thing he's written it would be "Manufacturing Consent" (read the book, saw the movie, thank you very much).

[Terran1212]

14. So he damages the left by obscure linguistic interpretations

That most political people don't know or care to understand in the first place?

[treegiver]

16. I'm afraid so.

Most people don't know or care to understand physics. That doesn't mean it's not influential.

[Terran1212]

22. But how is all that damaging to the left?

Does the average person say, "Oh, no! Chomsky has a different view of linguistics that I don't even understand than I do! I now hate universal health coverage!"?

[treegiver]

27. I'll just repeat what I said earlier

"Chomsky frequently claims that his linguistic endeavors are independent of his political activities. Not so. His central idea is that we can subjectively identify "laws and principals". Truth is, for him, subjective. This notion led to the formation of "identity politics", which splintered the left into ineffective and frequently oppositional factions. We were treated to such absurdities as "Black Mathematics" and "Feminist Mathematics". which unsurprisingly bore no fruit."

This is what I referred to earlier as "balkanization" (big word, look it up). As a result, there is currently no united front to advance things like universal health care.

[K-W]

31. It didnt make sense then and it doesnt make sense now.

Chomsky's linguistic work and activism do indeed have little to do with each other and your insistance that they are related betrays your confusion on both subjects. The idea that his linguistic theories led to the formation of identify politics is impressively cartoonish.

[treegiver]

35. I tried earlier,

perhaps too briefly, to indicate the connection between his subjectivist notions of knowledge and identity politics.

For Chomsky, "linguistic theory is mentalistic" (Aspects of the Theory of Syntax p. 4). He sold that notion to linguists, psychologists, political scientists, and educators, and they, in turn, sold it to everyone else, but once we abandon objective (as opposed to mentalistic) criteria, anything goes. In particular, everyone gets to have his/her own truth. That's the basis of identity politics. From this springs Feminist Mathematics and, eventually, the nonsense postmodernists pushed in the 90's. (Of course Chomsky distances himself, as always, from his intellectual offspring.)

To those who claim I don't understand Chomsky, I suggest you get yourself a big dictionary and wade through Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Syntactic Structures, and the various revisions thereof that have been occasioned by errors therein. Once you get around to Governance and Binding check back.

I'll be waiting.

[K-W]

36. Yes, that is your absurd unified chomsky sucks theory.

Even though the core of Chomsky's work is careful, skeptical, scientific analysis we are to believe that he advocates a subjective view of linguistics that he then used to undermine the institutions of America, because somehow hearing that linguistics are subjective makes people turn to so called identity politics which produces feminist mathematics and 90's postmodernism... which of course arent reflected at all in his actual political work... but this only proves that he is distancing himself from his sinister minions of subjectivity!

Thats quite a theory you've got there.

[treegiver]

38. When you say,

"Even though the core of Chomsky's work is careful, skeptical, scientific analysis..." we part company. You and I live in different worlds.

I suggest you read "Rethinking Innateness", "Verbal Behavior", anything about neural networks, and then talk to a bona fide linguist about Chomsky. If you still feel the same, get back to me.

[K-W]

15. thats one of the most scattered chomsky smears ive seen EOM

[treegiver]

17. I didn't want to write a treatise,

because I know that a forum like this isn't the place for such things. While I might grant that what I said was "scattered", I'd hesitate to call it a smear. If there is some point or points that I could clarify or expand upon I'd be happy to do so. Is there something you'd like to take issue with?

[K-W]

18. And we are all thankful for that.

How can one clarify or expand upon nonsense?

You cant even keep your smears straight; youve melded critiques of his linguistic work with a strange critique of his political activism. I really doubt you understand either.

[treegiver]

21. Doubt away.

I studied Chomsky and his doofus pal Fodor as an undergraduate. I concentrated on philosophy and mathematics with an emphasis on language and formal systems. Worked at Learning Research and Development Center (founded by B.F. Skinner and O.K. Moore) writing some of the first interactive programmed instruction software. Wrote theorem proving systems for obscure fragments of intuitionist logic. Have kept up with developments in artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind. You've seen movies that were made using software I wrote.

What is the basis of your doubt?

[K-W]

23. Lots of big words and name dropping.

But I still havent seen a sensical critique of Chomsky, particularly of his policy analysis (which is what this thread is about).

My doubt started when I saw that you had decided to throw an ad hominem attack into this thread. It grew when I read your posts and saw a scattered, overgeneralized and rather absurd critique of Chomsky. It grew even further when you proceeded to give out your biography rather than making a point relevant to this thread.

[treegiver]

25. If by "ad hominem" you mean "Chomsky sucks",

I'll perhaps grant that. The original title of my response was "I'm not", which referred to the previous "Iraqi PM is a Chomsky fan". When that failed to garner responses, I changed it to "Chomsky sucks" which seems to have been much more effective. I'll leave it to you to decide what that means about the level of discussion here.

If your charge of ad hominem refers to something else, I'm not sure what it might be. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Your claim that I use "big words" echoes an earlier comment. If there's some word or words that you don't understand I'd be happy to try to put it in words of one syllable if that would help, but that hardly qualifies as a refutation of what I said.

Looking forward to your response. Hope we can arrive at some sort of consensus.

[K-W]

30. I was referring to all your posts.

Not once have you addressed something Chomsky said in the interview this thread is about all you have done is level a broad, albiet scant, attack on Chomsky.

Im not sure why you are referring to the level of discussion here. Are you blaming the forum for the level of your posts?

Your claim that I use "big words" echoes an earlier comment. If there's some word or words that you don't understand I'd be happy to try to put it in words of one syllable if that would help, but that hardly qualifies as a refutation of what I said.

You misunderstand. I was not referring to my understanding of your words, I was referring to your use of jargon in place of a sensical argument. I was not attempting to refute your argument, you have done a more than adequate job of that on your own.

[treegiver]

32. I've made quite specific claims.

None, other than "Chomsky sucks" was ad hominem. (Do you know what that means?)

I'll leave it to others to decide who is more "sensical".

[K-W]

33. Instead of addressing the topic of this thread,

you levelled a general attack at Chomsky. That is ad hominem, when you attack the person making an argument rather than the argument.

Your claims are specifically nothing. Just a jargon filled pseudo-critique of his linguistics and an outlandish indictment of his activism that youve oddly attempted to link together into some unfied chomsky sucks theory.

[treegiver]

45. Yes, I did.

I leveled a general attack. Was it an ad hominem attack? Did I insinuate things about his mother? Disparage his wardrobe? Claim that he spends money in brothels? Or did I respond to him?

Again, I leave it to the reader.

[Imperialism Inc.]

24. The basis of my doubt is what I expressed in my private mail

in response to yours.

It is that you seem to have a very confused understanding of the meaning of Chomsky's linguistic ideas and especially their deeper philosophical implications.

Part of the problem may be one of definitions since idealism has been used to mean many things, or rather it has been used with many qualifiers, some of which mean very very different things. Perhaps you could provide a definition for your usage and it would make more sense (because as it stands it does not). I assume you are using it to contrast with materialism. Materialism = mind is all physical, idealism = the opposite , all mental.

To characterize Chomsky's ideas as idealism is to misunderstand them completely. He thinks the brain has certain innate structures that are determined by genetics. That is a completely materialistic notion of mind. He also thinks that within those set structures the environment determines the minds beliefs (within the limits imposed by structure). There is nothing idealistic about this either. It can happen through perfectly materialistic mechanisms and still be true. In fact, all study of the matter has shown that is exactly how the mind works. It does indeed have generalized areas that are associated with specific functions and specific types of cognition with a wide range of variability within that structure. The notion that these differences are determined 100% by genetics is not tenable based on current understanding.

This essentially all boils down to nature vs nurture in common parlance. But the answer to that debate is not to pick one or the other ,but to recognize that both are very important. Even at the genetic level this is the case. Organisms can respond to the environment by turning certain genes "on" or "off".

So in short I would just say that I agree with Chomsky's response to the charges of idealism in his theories as written in the link I sent you. Specifically question:

http://www.chomsky.info/books/responsibility02.htm

...

QUESTION: Empiricism thus finds support both from the right and the left ... That explains why generative grammar is often attacked by the progressive. intelligentsia, precisely because of your reference to the hypothesis of "innate ideas," as it is called, that is, the genetic limitations imposed on language. This hypothesis is accused of idealism.

CHOMSKY: That is true, as you say. But the characterization is quite irrational. A consistent materialist would consider it as self-evident that the mind has very important innate structures, physically realized in some manner. Why should it be otherwise? As I have already mentioned, if we assume that human beings belong to the biological world, then we must expect them to resemble the rest of the biological world. Their physical constitution, their organs, and the principles of maturation are genetically determined. There is no reason for supposing the mental world to be an exception. The hypothesis which naturally comes to mind is that these mental systems, unusual in the biological world because of their extraordinary complexity, exhibit the general characteristics of known biological systems. I would emphasize once again that even qualitative considerations of the most evident kind suggest this conclusion: it is difficult to see any other explanation for the fact that extremely complicated and intricate structures are acquired, in a like manner among all individuals, on the basis of very limited and often imperfect data.

...

P.S. What is very strange to me is that it seems to me that the notion that language is all learned is more idealistic not less. Where is the materialistic basis there? That is why I am wondering if you are using idealism in some unusual way.

[treegiver]

28. I don't believe I called Chomsky an idealist, he's a dualist.

As in Cartesian Dualism, as in Cartesian Linguistics. I said he re-opened the door to idealist speculation.

Your quote from the Chomsky interview illustrates this nicely.

[Imperialism Inc.]

34. Well you would believe wrong.

You:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=818228&mesg_id=818791

Everywhere we're mired in dialectical idealism. Thanks, Noam.


You again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x818228

His central idea is that we can subjectively identify "laws and principals". Truth is, for him, subjective.

i.e. subjective not objective (materialistic).
Problem is , that is not accurate. The full idea is that subjective meaning occurs within a framework of innate structures.


What you never said:
dualism!
The only place the word or any variation of it appears on this page is in the post I am responding to. Maybe you you need to learn how to better express your ideas (or get your b.s. straight). You used idealism or idealistic several times.

So, how does dualism lead to identity politics exactly? Why doesn't it lead to universal moral truths instead? That is one of the components too right? That certain things are innate in the mind and therefore universal. Chomsky certainly believes that human morals are one of those innate things (with a wide range) as I have heard him speak of it many times.

This kind of dualism, between what is innate and what is learned, is of a very different kind than typical philosophical dualism refers to (which , again , you never even mentioned before anyway). This is because the two principles work together not against each other.

But here is the kicker. Since it appears that the nature-nurture duality is very real (that both are true and complement each other), then what is you beef exactly? That a man working in a scientific field expressed a now verified hypothesis? (note: I am here referring to the general sense of mind with innate structures not necessarily the specifics of his generative grammars). From you other posts on here, especially in the R/T forum, I am very surprised you would complain about that.

Frankly at this point I think I have to return to my original notion of your ideas. That you really don't know what you are talking about.

[treegiver]

37. I hate to resort to fisking, but...

You (quoting me): Everywhere we're mired in dialectical idealism. Thanks, Noam.

It's a joke, turning on the notion that we have abandoned Marx's (flawed) dialectical materialism. "Dialectical dualism" doesn't work as well. But I didn't claim Chomsky is an idealist, only that he re-opened the door to it. My mentions of idealism point out that he rehabilitated idealism, the other half of dualism.

The full idea is that subjective meaning occurs within a framework of innate structures.

And those innate structures reside within the mind (these are the missing rules of semantics that his disciple Lakoff gasses about, and they reside alongside the missing rules of grammar that Chomsky has made a career of). He does claim that there is some presumably physical "language module" that facilitates all this, but presents no evidence.

Of course Chomsky is not Berkeley. He doesn't say that's ALL there is.

What you never said: dualism!

My mention of Cartesian Linguistics didn't give you a clue? Perhaps I assume too much of the audience.

Since it appears that the nature-nurture duality is very real...

Whoa. How did we get there?

now verified hypothesis

Where did you read that? Pinker?

you really don't know what you are talking about

Again, I'll leave that to others, but I'm not sanguine about the verdict. People believe what makes them feel good.

[Imperialism Inc.]

41. But it is an idealism

rooted in a materialistic basis. That is why Chomsky states that the assertion of idealism is irrational. Because it is!!

It's a joke, turning on the notion that we have abandoned Marx's (flawed) dialectical materialism. "Dialectical dualism" doesn't work as well. But I didn't claim Chomsky is an idealist, only that he re-opened the door to it. My mentions of idealism point out that he rehabilitated idealism, the other half of dualism.

Why can't you decide whether or not you mean idealism or not?

You do mean it. You don't . You mean the other half of Cartesian Linguistics . Which is idealism!!! and which I am supposedly stupid because I didn't know that, and you denied it!!! Make up your mind!

Not to mention the absurd notion that Chomsky isn't an idealist but that it is somhow his fault if others decided to be idealists. Are you for real?

but presents no evidence.

Presenting evidence you don't agree with ,e.g. that children learn from imperfect info very quickly and not being able to do so easily after a certain age. Presenting evidence in the form of analysis of language itself and common grammar characteristics. That is NOT the same as not presenting any evidence.

My mention of Cartesian Linguistics didn't give you a clue? Perhaps I assume too much of the audience.

Nice ad hom.

There you go again flipping and flopping around on whether you mean idealism or not. You obviously recognize now that idealism, is;the other half of dualism but you didn't a few minutes back. Are we really not supposed to notice that you only recently understood the meaning of the words you were uttering?

The problem is you fail to notice that there is a distinct difference between the two types of dualism. That even "mentalistic" is meant in a very different sense than that of Descartes. I really like your quoting out of context above, btw. Very nice! Do you moonlight for the Intelligent Design movement by any chance?

"linguistic theory is mentalistic, since it is concerned with a mental reality underlying actual behaviour ... makes no assumptions about the possible physiological basis for the mental reality... without denying that there is such a basis"

--

We are essentially talking about nature vs. nurture or a variation of it. Part of language is built in (nature) and part is learned (nurture). That the mind is like that is strongly established. It has generalized areas for different types of cognition but can aquire new knowledge and abilities from the environment. I thought you knew your Chomsky? Did you forget the discussion of visual and auditory systems? Tisk tisk.

As far nature and nurture both being very important components of mind, pick up any recent science book on neuro-science or for the more general case genetics. I really don't have the time to school you in basic modern science. Try The Agile Gene for the biological evidence. Any good neuro-science 101 primer should do for that.

People believe what makes them feel good.

Yada yada. In other words you failed at logical argument. You flipped and flopped around and demonstrated that you didn't even know the meaning of the words you were uttering (idealistic speculation indeed). So now you've resorted to pretending you are super intelligent and insulting every one.

I know your type. You can have the last word, but I won't be reading it. The verdict is already in.

[treegiver]

44. "But it is an idealism rooted in a materialistic basis."

I can't read any farther. Sorry. I'm in the wrong place. Gotta go.

[SeaBob]

26. noam chomski

sounds to me like you just dont or wont try to grasp the concepts of what he is saying. It does require real critical thought.

[treegiver]

29. I'm just dumb.

Is that your point? (BTW, he spells it "Chomsky")

[BlooInBloo]

11. mmm.... Transformative Generative Grammars...

that's hot.

I <3 Noam.

lol