[quote]lizard king wrote:
At one point he stated how people were born with this special language center in the brain, I believe he called it the LED or AED. [/quote]
He also said, at one point, that language is “represented” in the brain… a phrase that my Philosophy of Language professor loved to quote and ridicule.
I sighted some Chomsky in my dissertation and seem to remember he pointed out that the Serbians began ethnic cleansing AFTER the US and UK went in and prior to that most violence was terrorism directed at Serbian police. The reason ‘the coalition’ entered was because Milosovic did something to anger the EU or US or something, I forget, been reading about Reformation Italy all day and my minds like a seive now! Anyway, the point he was making was that the timeline had been flipped around at some point for PR purposes and that the Serbian genocide may not have taken place if outside interference had not occured and put Serbian ‘backs against the wall’ so to speak. That may have been from the Chomsky Reader, or Hegemony or Survival, again, the seive-brain is playing up!
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
In Chomsky’s case, the wealth of sources he quotes is so impressive, it would be difficult to find a comparable expert.
[/quote]
Until you actually try and track down the various details of the citations, etc. and you find out that many of them are utter BS or were taken out of context. He uses all of these “sources” as a veneer that allows him to pretend that his various theories and opinions are actully supported by a mountain of facts. It’s a brilliant marketing move and has served him well.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
lizard king wrote:
At one point he stated how people were born with this special language center in the brain, I believe he called it the LED or AED.
He also said, at one point, that language is “represented” in the brain… a phrase that my Philosophy of Language professor loved to quote and ridicule.[/quote]
My background is in physics. I’ve heard philosophers talk about physics, and they’re a joke; most of the time they don’t know the subject, and their musings are somewhere between irrelevent and ridiculous. So, I would be wary about citing a philosopher, or anyone, talking about anything outside his field.
Clearly not taking my own advice, the point of the language center is that if certain aspects of language can be proved not to be learned, then there must be some a priori structure in the brain to account for it, there by the grace of natural selection.
It may be that your professor was right, I’d just need more of an argument to know why exactly was he laughing about it.
Dan
[quote]jayhawk1 wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
In Chomsky’s case, the wealth of sources he quotes is so impressive, it would be difficult to find a comparable expert.
Until you actually try and track down the various details of the citations, etc. and you find out that many of them are utter BS or were taken out of context. He uses all of these “sources” as a veneer that allows him to pretend that his various theories and opinions are actully supported by a mountain of facts. It’s a brilliant marketing move and has served him well.
[/quote]
Could you provide one example of a source that does not check out, that it’s out of context? As an example of the quality of his work, I recommend “Manufacturing Consent”.
Dan
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
nephorm wrote:
lizard king wrote:
At one point he stated how people were born with this special language center in the brain, I believe he called it the LED or AED.
He also said, at one point, that language is “represented” in the brain… a phrase that my Philosophy of Language professor loved to quote and ridicule.
My background is in physics. I’ve heard philosophers talk about physics, and they’re a joke; most of the time they don’t know the subject, and their musings are somewhere between irrelevent and ridiculous. So, I would be wary about citing a philosopher, or anyone, talking about anything outside his field.
Clearly not taking my own advice, the point of the language center is that if certain aspects of language can be proved not to be learned, then there must be some a priori structure in the brain to account for it, there by the grace of natural selection.
It may be that your professor was right, I’d just need more of an argument to know why exactly was he laughing about it.
Dan
[/quote]
Heh heh. I agree to a point. I’m an English major, with a good background in philosophy. Philosophers have to be very careful to seperate from actual science, as the questions and ideas are similar, but man do the approaches vary.
Chomsky makes good points in the things he says. I have read several of his articles, but none of his books yet. He approaches things in a Marxist paradigm instead of a capitalist one. Anyone who does so will come up with his ideas. Whether you like him or not depends on your politics.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
It may be that your professor was right, I’d just need more of an argument to know why exactly was he laughing about it.
Dan
[/quote]
First off, he was a professor of the philosophy of language, and had essentially the same training as a linguist. I’m a computer engineer, with a decent amount of mathematical and physics training, so I understand where you’re coming from.
As far as the statement itself, it has been years since I was exposed to the technical problems of the statement. Here is the basic idea: Many linguists (not just Chomsky) say that language is “represented” in the brain. The problem with this is in the technical use of the term “represented,” especially when used to mean “To stand for or symbolize.”
In that sense, saying that language is represented in the brain is to say that the units of language each have corresponding forms in the brain itself. An example of this would be if when you read the word “word,” a pattern of brain cells in the pattern of the shape (word) could be shown to light up on a scan.
As a side note, there was an experiment, I believe, that showed that a replica of images seen by monkeys could be observed in the brain itself. This would lend credence to representation, but I’ve only heard of the study anecdotally. Since I’m not a philosopher of language nor a linguist, I don’t spend too much time worrying about it ;-).
And as another side note, I frequently refer to the study of the Philosophy of Language as one of those bastardized realms of philosophy that obfuscate rather than clarify experience. Linguistics, to the extent that it ignores PoL, is a useful science. The PoLers do, however, have a privileged insight into the sillier aspects of linguistics.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Prof. X and Zepplin are both semi-illiterate at best.
Zap was just saying that declaring Chomsky a brainiac means jack-shit. Zap thinks I’m Einstein’s smarter, older brother. Doesn’t mean shit.[/quote]
The point is NO ONE would argue that he(Zap) is a world leading intellect but Chompsky has quite a bit of credentials to in order for that type of assesment to even be made.
If you don’t like semi-illiterate posts then why do you even bother to type:)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
doogie wrote:
Prof. X and Zepplin are both semi-illiterate at best.
Zap was just saying that declaring Chomsky a brainiac means jack-shit. Zap thinks I’m Einstein’s smarter, older brother. Doesn’t mean shit.
You don’t get it.
He seems to understand perfectly.
Chomsky is as phony as a three dollar bill.
The fact that you cannot see through his rhetoric and his amazing lack of logic does not make Chomsky a leading intellectual, but it certainly casts your critical thinking skills in doubt.
[/quote]
If you even want to get close to the truth you first have to stop devouring corporate mass media.
Your statements are indicative of the propaganda system. Be objective and open-minded as possible and challenge your beliefs. You may be surprised at what you find.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
You’ve obviously never read Chompsky as using “big words” is not his forte’. He spells out an arguement as simple as he can and let’s IT do the talking. If you want to listen to someone who uses big words and force of rhetoric, then listen to William F. Buckley.
Chomsky is great with his words, he can spin a line of crap and make some people think they smell roses.
And it also depends on what you read. He has some stuff out where he has spent a page basically saying nothing. I admit that takes skill.
Now do you support his anarchy, or his communism position, or both?
[/quote]
He is a liberatrian socialist.
[quote]fahd wrote:
The Mage wrote:
If Noam Chomsky is an intellectual, Then Michael Moore is the leading expert on diet and exercise.
Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall.
Oh well, I guess conservatives aren’t big fans of intellectuals.[/quote]
How many times do you think Zap made it into the polls?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
fahd wrote:
Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall.
Oh well, I guess conservatives aren’t big fans of intellectuals.
I believe Thomas Kuhn once held that position, as well; that doesn’t make me any more inclined to take Kuhn’s positions for granted than it does Chomsky’s. I’ve never denied his ability as a linguist. I have only asserted that he ought to stick to his specialty. Any physicist could write stunning diatribes that anyone without a degree in Quantum Physics would be utterly unable to fathom. That, however, would not make him qualified as a political theorist, nor relevant in that subject matter.
We have enough kooks in political theory as it is; you linguists keep Chomsky to yourselves. We’re already well-stocked with crazy.[/quote]
This means relatively nothing. What matters is is what he says the truth?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
lizard king wrote:
At one point he stated how people were born with this special language center in the brain, I believe he called it the LED or AED.
He also said, at one point, that language is “represented” in the brain… a phrase that my Philosophy of Language professor loved to quote and ridicule.[/quote]
Chopmsky believes that language is a biological endowment unique to human beings. That language is inate. We are born with the compacity to speak.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Chopmsky believes that language is a biological endowment unique to human beings. That language is inate. We are born with the compacity to speak.[/quote]
Gee, thanks. That totally addresses my aside. Please see my followup post for clarification.
Also: Bee dance.
In a real interview the readers would see all the questions asked by the interviewee and the answers by the interviewer. All we have here is a hack job. She fabricated a Chompsky quote in order to smear him.
The establishment media can’t touch Chompsky w/o resorting to lies, smears and more lies.
He is one of the most methodical and tireless dissectors and denouncers of monstrosity in our era.
[quote]joemurphy wrote:
arguably means “not subject to argument, irrefutable”.
no current professional in linguistics thinks chomsky has made a contribution in 20 years. in fact, the old joke is that the only way to get him to shut up is to ask him a linguistics question.
sadly, he is famous overseas. but anyone who thinks he is an intellectual for his linguistics or political insights - that’s just sad. plenty of brilliant people on the left. chomsky is none of them.[/quote]
Obviously you only know what people tell you about Chompsky. How sad.
I’ve seen him debate Heads of State, Deans of Ivy League schools, a CIA Director and political pundits. He won them all and the audience knew it.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The establishment media can’t touch Chompsky w/o resorting to lies, smears and more lies.
He is one of the most methodical and tireless dissectors and denouncers of monstrosity in our era.[/quote]
And some day, you’ll learn to spell his name correctly.
[quote]fahd wrote:
Intellectuals Poll is a list of the 100 most important living public intellectuals in the world, which has been compiled by the Prospect Magazine (UK), on the basis of a reader’s ballot consisted of more than 20,000 votes.
[/quote]
Name ten others off the top of your head. Maybe that’s how they decided on Gnome. He’s the only one they knew.
And being the most quoted doesn’t mean you’re right - it just means other people quote you. Maybe they do so to highlight the dopiness of many of his positions. It wouldn’t be hard and you get a pretty good scalp along the way.
BTW If you can get through Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent you deserve a medal. It has to be a contender as the most boring, repetitious book ever written (as voted by me). That’s what’s fascinating about him. So many people drool over his polemics but few have the courage to drudge through them - and for good reason: they suck.
[quote]David Murtagh wrote:
fahd wrote:
Intellectuals Poll is a list of the 100 most important living public intellectuals in the world, which has been compiled by the Prospect Magazine (UK), on the basis of a reader’s ballot consisted of more than 20,000 votes.
Name ten others off the top of your head. Maybe that’s how they decided on Gnome. He’s the only one they knew.
And being the most quoted doesn’t mean you’re right - it just means other people quote you. Maybe they do so to highlight the dopiness of many of his positions. It wouldn’t be hard and you get a pretty good scalp along the way.
BTW If you can get through Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent you deserve a medal. It has to be a contender as the most boring, repetitious book ever written (as voted by me). That’s what’s fascinating about him. So many people drool over his polemics but few have the courage to drudge through them - and for good reason: they suck. [/quote]
It is frightening that you could (presumably) get through the first chapter of that book, and not be shaken by its arguments. I have read few things as powerful as that, in particular the five filters that news get through before being published.
[quote]joemurphy wrote:
no current professional in linguistics thinks chomsky has made a contribution in 20 years.
[/quote]
Einstein hasn’t contributed in about 70 years, not to mention Newton. Clowns, the both of them, I’m sure. When you’re 76, like Chomsky, I wonder how much you’ll be contributing…
[quote] in fact, the old joke is that the only way to get him to shut up is to ask him a linguistics question.
.[/quote]
It’s a bad joke, since he’s still active in research. However linguistics, like any field, is not immune to professional jealousy.
Actually, he’s famous everywhere, not just “overseas”, and that includes the US. I’m honestly curious on what sources you are actually basing your opinion of him.