Kalroy was Here
I wrote while you were gone about some of my students denigrating their abilities. I got so mad. Being able to do complex tank mechanics takes just as much brainpower as inventing fake linguistic theories. And it's real.
I mostly agree with you. Chomsky is no different from any other human; everyone has their field of specialty, and will appear ignorant if asked to do anything outside of it. It's the diversity of specialties that makes the world run (when it does run). As for his breadth of knowledge, I really don't know. But his biography and over 170 publications since 1951 says that he's done a fair deal, loved or hated.
That's quite a bit of publications. But how much does that actually mean? His linguistics haven't seemed to have had much impact in the world, it gives him his pulpit for his real specialty which is political commentary and activism. Very few people in the world know of his linguistic theories, it's his politics that get the most play.
Whereas, on the other hand, people with a high technical knowledge in a very specialized fields such as Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawkings have had their works read by a much broader non-scientific community because they have the ability to present their knowledge much more effectively.
But 170 is an impressive number. I wonder how many some of the bloggers I've read could get published in a tenured, college publishing environment? I mean, ever read some of the pamphlets, articles, and books that come from there? Some great, yet obscure stuff, but some real crap.
Kal
His linguistics haven't seemed to have had much impact in the world, it gives him his pulpit for his real specialty which is political commentary and activism.
I can't speak to this, really, as I don't know how much his linguistic theories have impacted the world at large. He is certainly more well-known in the general populace for his political writings, which makes sense given that it's easy to polarize people with political opinion and that politics is not of the same technical nature as linguistics or psychology.
I mean, ever read some of the pamphlets, articles, and books that come from there? Some great, yet obscure stuff, but some real crap.
You mean "there" as in "college environment?" I agree entirely 
Actually, Chomsky's linguistics has had an enormous impact on the world -- it's the gospel in linguistic circles -- even though it has no basis in tangible facts. Amritas writes about this all the time; start here for a summary.
Sarah,
I don't dispute that his impact on the linguistic field has been tremendous, but I'm saying I don't know how much his linguistic knowledge has impacted the world -outside- of the field. For example, Charles Stark Draper has had a large impact in the world and is known by some as the "father of inertial navigation." Everytime we hop on an aircraft for a long range flight (for example), his accomplishments allow us to reach our destination. Most people , however, have never heard of him. Are Noam Chomsky's accomplishments similar? And even if they aren't.... even if they are limited solely to the field of linguistics, I still think his efforts are meaningful.
From Pariah Against A Prophet:
Chomskyanism has been the dominant paradigm in linguistics for nearly forty years, and its major competitors share some of its weaknesses.
Science isn't a place where one can buy a ticket to the top using a ton of money or some sort of wizardry. I'm inclined to believe in peer review; maybe some of Chomsky is trash, but he wouldn't have made it this far if even a large part of it was garbage. Then again, I've no clue. No, I don't agree with Marc's comment on peer review as "log rolling." I don't deny, however, that scientists can be swayed by government money; they are human.
Is Chomsky a double fraud in both science and politics? I honestly don't know.
Marc has a Ph.D in linguistics. If he doesn't know, then I figure we certainly don't. But I can't speak on Marc as a person either.
Outstanding points. I have no problem admitting that my knowledge of linguistics is limited to the few languages I have bothered to study (which is not the same thing as learn).
I do know that getting an easy "A" by studying Hawaiian meant never hearing a thing about Chomsky while studying the relationship between Polynesian languages, and between Polynesian, Melanesian and Micronesian languages.
I would be interested in knowing if Chomsky, or those who agree with his theories, have ever tried to work up proofs for them and if those proofs were ever peer reviewed.
On analysis I think my biggest problem with having any respect for Chomsky's linguitic ability is that I expect that the same hap-hazard, hypocritical, and lazy thinking he has consistently put into his politics is indicative of how he deals with anything else in his life that requires thought. This may or may not be true, but I'm betting it is.
One last thing. I like learning and I've gotten to learn from these comments. Not to mention I have more stuff to think about.
Thank you,
Kal
Thank you for reading them. You've been helpful as well.
Is Chomsky a double fraud in both science and politics? I honestly don't know.
Marc has a Ph.D in linguistics. If he doesn't know, then I figure we certainly don't. But I can't speak on Marc as a person either.
Marc has written before about how the definition of a fraud includes intentionally deceiving people. He's not sure if Chomsky knows his linguistics is b.s. or if he really believes such nonsense.
When I said that Chomsky's linguistics are not based in fact, I was not being snarky. There's simply no reason to believe in Universal Grammar or Transformations. Marc has more here. Please don't just assume that since you haven't studied linguistics you have to take Chomsky's word for it. His is a religion, not a science.
From one short review on Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax:
Of course there are certain assumptions on which his theory rests which have since been discredited, but this book is still influential, even within competing linguistic theories, and is very important from a historical perspective.
It appears Chomsky is indeed a Freud-like character: largely derided, yet impossible to ignore (in the field). Interesting, the things I learn daily.
Commenting by HaloScan
