Selene

Noam Chomsky, a full professor of LINGUISTICS!!

Recommended Posts

Must be a theme here!

With this statement and Ezekial's "rationing health care panels," [new name in the interests of civility], I think Noam should get a very low number near the top of the list!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chomsky is a dogmatic materialist. (Kolker should love him.) His claim to fame in linguistics is having discovered that despite the fact that the mind is a myth, man must have some organ which allows him to learn complex grammatical rules without formal coaching. (Never heard of the ability to induce?) He and his banal theory of transformational grammar (we must have a mysterious organ which allows us to convert sentences such as "the dog bit the man" into sentences like "the man was bit by the dog") set linguistics back forty years and is still doing untold damage.

This all makes him an expert on international statecraft and 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I take some comfort in knowing that perhaps one of the German or Irish Catholic school boys who tormented him as a youth in Philadelphia may have been an uncle or second cousin of mine.

Edited by Ted Keer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chomsky is a dogmatic materialist. (Kolker should love him.) His claim to fame in linguistics is having discovered that despite the fact that the mind is a myth, man must have some organ which allows him to learn complex grammatical rules without formal coaching. (Never heard of the ability to induce?) He and his banal

I am an undogmatic materialist and we do have an organ. It is called the brain. Our brain mediates our linguistic actions and awareness. And all our inductions are done with our brains. I note that everything that exists in the world is physical or the effect of physical causes. There are no spirits, ghosts, gods, wills of the wisp, souls are any such non physical nonsensical entities.

I am not fond of Chomosky. He is a Statist from Hell. I dislike him the way I dislike Alexander Hamilton.

I would advise you to be a little more humble or modest about the conclusions you reach. I am reminded of Oliver Cromwell's words to the Scottish synod: "In the bowels of Christ, might ye not be mistaken?"

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chomsky is a dogmatic materialist. (Kolker should love him.) His claim to fame in linguistics is having discovered that despite the fact that the mind is a myth, man must have some organ which allows him to learn complex grammatical rules without formal coaching. (Never heard of the ability to induce?) He and his banal

I am an undogmatic materialist and we do have an organ. It is called the brain. Our brain mediates our linguistic actions and awareness. And all our inductions are done with our brains. I note that everything that exists in the world is physical or the effect of physical causes. There are no spirits, ghosts, gods, wills of the wisp, souls are any such non physical nonsensical entities.

Ah, yes, "brains." Keep forgetting the reason cats and dogs don't talk is their lack of brains. A good, pat, contrarian answer on your part though, denying what no one asserted.

I would advise you to be a little more humble or modest about the conclusions you reach. I am reminded of Oliver Cromwell's words to the Scottish synod: "In the bowels of Christ, might ye not be mistaken?"

Ba'al Chatzaf

I stand 100% behind everything I said in that post. Humble in my conclusions about what?

Edited by Ted Keer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted,

If you read Chomsky carefully, you'll see that he's not actually a dogmatic materialist.

In fact, he believes in some kind of free will, and has more than a few traces of Cartesian dualism clinging to him.

Besides, he's on the record doubting that any evolutionary explanation of human language capabilities could be adequate. If he's a materialist, he's an anti-naturalistic materialist, and there aren't a whole lot of those critters around.

None of this is meant as defense of politics, which are genuinely odious. He was, for a time, an apologist for Pol Pot. Had he been on the scene in the 1930s, he'd have willingly served as an apologist for Comrade J. V. Stalin.

Robert Campbell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted,

If you read Chomsky carefully, you'll see that he's not actually a dogmatic materialist.

In fact, he believes in some kind of free will, and has more than a few traces of Cartesian dualism clinging to him.

Besides, he's on the record doubting that any evolutionary explanation of human language capabilities could be adequate. If he's a materialist, he's an anti-naturalistic materialist, and there aren't a whole lot of those critters around.

None of this is meant as defense of politics, which are genuinely odious. He was, for a time, an apologist for Pol Pot. Had he been on the scene in the 1930s, he'd have willingly served as an apologist for Comrade J. V. Stalin.

Robert Campbell

By dogmatic I meant as a result of his methodological Marxism, based on his ideology, not in the sense of static, unwavering or consistent.

Edited by Ted Keer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, "brains." Keep forgetting the reason cats and dogs don't talk is their lack of brains. A good, pat, contrarian answer on your part though, denying what no one asserted.

No. The beasties have different kinds of brains than we do. We have what evolution bequeathed to us in a quasi random way.

You know the ants have brains, teeny tiny brains and they have language too --- chemical exhalations with which the function of a nest with a million ants is co-ordinated by very efficiently. Not all languages are systematic vibrations of the air.

The fact is that many of the beasties have been around longer than we have and many of them are very successful at living on this planet.

That cats and dogs don't talk like we do. They have body language. It seems to work fine. They get us to feed them and remove fleas from their fur.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, "brains." Keep forgetting the reason cats and dogs don't talk is their lack of brains. A good, pat, contrarian answer on your part though, denying what no one asserted.

No. The beasties have different kinds of brains than we do. We have what evolution bequeathed to us in a quasi random way.

You know the ants have brains, teeny tiny brains and they have language too --- chemical exhalations with which the function of a nest with a million ants is co-ordinated by very efficiently. Not all languages are systematic vibrations of the air.

The fact is that many of the beasties have been around longer than we have and many of them are very successful at living on this planet.

That cats and dogs don't talk like we do. They have body language. It seems to work fine. They get us to feed them and remove fleas from their fur.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Answer my question, Bob, more humble about what?

As for your brilliant, if tardy, realization that animals have different kinds of brains, Chomsky argues that humans have a unique language organ. Read my first post. You are the one who, compelled to comment, but in obvious ignorance of Chomsky's work, called this organ a brain. For someone who insists on identifying modules of the mind with neurophysiology, I would expect you to criticize Chomsky's notion even more loudly than you do Rand's theory of concept formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, "brains." Keep forgetting the reason cats and dogs don't talk is their lack of brains. A good, pat, contrarian answer on your part though, denying what no one asserted.

No. The beasties have different kinds of brains than we do. We have what evolution bequeathed to us in a quasi random way.

You know the ants have brains, teeny tiny brains and they have language too --- chemical exhalations with which the function of a nest with a million ants is co-ordinated by very efficiently. Not all languages are systematic vibrations of the air.

The fact is that many of the beasties have been around longer than we have and many of them are very successful at living on this planet.

That cats and dogs don't talk like we do. They have body language. It seems to work fine. They get us to feed them and remove fleas from their fur.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Answer my question, Bob, more humble about what?

As for your brilliant, if tardy, realization that animals have different kinds of brains, Chomsky argues that humans have a unique language organ. Read my first post. You are the one who, compelled to comment, but in obvious ignorance of Chomsky's work, called this organ a brain. For someone who insists on identifying modules of the mind with neurophysiology, I would expect you to criticize Chomsky's notion even more loudly than you do Rand's theory of concept formation.

Our language organs are Broca's Area (of the brain) and Warneke's Area (of the brain). There are well scanned these days. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca's_Area

The Mind is what the brain does when it is working right. The Mind is not a stand alone physical object located in 4-space. The Mind is a function and a process, not an object.

When I participated in a brain function study (brain activity in older folks) at Rutgers University I was stuffed head first into an MRI scanning machine (I felt like Clarence of George being pushed head first into a malmsey butt). They did several active scans while I did various in my head exercises like solve problems and do language puzzles. I got two sets of very nice three axis scans of my brain. I asked the PhD in charge of the study if he could point out where in the scan outputs my mind was located. He looked at me kind of funny like. I got no answer from him.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know how long Noam Chomsky has been on a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming kick. "Death knell for the species" didn't use to be part of his rhetoric.

His political speeches and writings in the past were basically Old Left (he pretended to be an anarchist, but I see no evidence that he expected his pretense to be taken seriously). Not much in the way of environmentalism going on.

I just read a piece by the prominent advocate of sacrifice, Peter Singer, that reveals how he too has joined the Warmistas.

Robert Campbell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert:

These conversions prove to me that the leadership behind the "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" movement is dyed in wool marxist and anti-industrial at it's core.

The science or facts are irrelevant.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know how long Noam Chomsky has been on a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming kick. "Death knell for the species" didn't use to be part of his rhetoric.

<br><br>

He apparently has backtracked a wee bit on the 'death knell for the species' comment.'**

<br><br>Here he is speaking to the larger issues as he sees them, with final remarks suggesting he sees humanity 'circling the drain.'<br><br>

<br><br>

_____________<br><br>

** <p class="MsoNormal">Mickey Z.: I recently watched a <a href="http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate">video</a>

on climate change in which you were one of the featured interviewees. You

talked quite somberly about the recent elections being a “death knell” for

humanity and us “kissing our species goodbye.” I’ve read your work for decades

but can’t seem to recall you using such language in this context. In your view,

have we humans waited too long to <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/theres-no-time-like-now-be-activist59403">take

action</a>? Do you believe we can/should <a href="http://planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/green-glossary-dismantle.html">downsize

our industrial culture</a> before it downsizes itself?</p>

<br><br>

<p class="MsoNormal">Noam Chomsky: If I said the elections <i style="">are</i> a death knell, I went too far. But I think it’s fair to say

that they do threaten that outcome. Even the business press is concerned. <i style="">Bloomberg Business Week</i> reported that

the elections brought into office dozens of climate change deniers, swelling

support for Senator James Inhofe, who has declared global warming to be the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/senator-inhofe/">“greatest

hoax ever perpetuated on the American people”</a> and feels “vindicated” by the

election. He probably is also celebrating the ascendance of representative John

Shimkus who assures us that <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44958.html">God would prevent

dire effects of climate change</a>; analogues would be hard to find in other

societies. And probably is also celebrating the fact that according to recent

polls, barely a third of Americans now believe that human activities are a

factor in climate change – very likely the result of a major corporate

propaganda offensive, openly announced, to achieve this result. It’s important

to bear in mind that those who orchestrate the campaigns know as well as the

rest of us that the “hoax” is real and ominous, but they are pursuing their

institutional role: maximizing short-term profit and putting aside

“externalities,” in this case the fate of the species. Modifying the core

institutions of the society is no small challenge. This confluence of factors

should serve as a grim warning. If the US continues to drag its feet on

addressing these grave problems, the rest of the world will have even less

incentive to proceed with serious measures. I don’t think that entails

downsizing industrial culture. Rather, converting it to sustainable form to

serve human needs, not private profit. For example high-speedrail and solar

technology do not downsize industrial culture.</p><br>

[from The Online Journal]

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These conversions prove to me that the leadership behind the "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" movement is dyed in wool marxist and anti-industrial at it's core.

The science or facts are irrelevant.

It could be that Singer and Chomsky are 'converts' to belief in anthropogenic global warming, with all negative connotations of 'convert' that any of us can imagine.

As for your more general points, Adam, I am a kind of a 'convert' to agreeing the science supporting AGW, having replaced my earlier 'I dunno' agnosticism. In the short term, say a couple of hundred years, I also agree some of the effects of global warming would likely be catastrophic for a fair percentage of earth's population, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue ramping up.

I will set aside questioning the notion that there is some nameless Morksist leadership cabal driving all such conversions, and simply ask how you link a convert like me (or Shermer, for example) to the cabal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These conversions prove to me that the leadership behind the "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" movement is dyed in wool marxist and anti-industrial at it's core.

The science or facts are irrelevant.

It could be that Singer and Chomsky are 'converts' to belief in anthropogenic global warming, with all negative connotations of 'convert' that any of us can imagine.

As for your more general points, Adam, I am a kind of a 'convert' to agreeing the science supporting AGW, having replaced my earlier 'I dunno' agnosticism. In the short term, say a couple of hundred years, I also agree some of the effects of global warming would likely be catastrophic for a fair percentage of earth's population, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue ramping up.

I will set aside questioning the notion that there is some nameless Morksist leadership cabal driving all such conversions, and simply ask how you link a convert like me (or Shermer, for example) to the cabal?

William:

I do not link you to any cabal. Schermer's 2006 "conversion" is based, he states, on the accumulation of evidence. I am not familiar about what evidence that he was referring to. However, as you are aware, that is one of the framing issues that we will have to make as part of the debate we are going to have with five (5) participants.

My statement is that Chomsky was a marxist and his conversion to AGW allows him to use that dialectic to burrow into a movement as a leader. Singer is a utilitarianist who believes in redistribution of wealth. As you are aware, his argument is that the only standard of the good is the greatest good for the greatest number.

Although he, as far as I know, has never explicitly stated that he was a marxist, the views above sure would fit. Again, he steps into support for AGW as a major leader and gatekeeper for the movement.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These conversions prove to me that the leadership behind the "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" movement is dyed in wool marxist and anti-industrial at it's core.

The science or facts are irrelevant.

It could be that Singer and Chomsky are 'converts' to belief in anthropogenic global warming, with all negative connotations of 'convert' that any of us can imagine.

As for your more general points, Adam, I am a kind of a 'convert' to agreeing the science supporting AGW, having replaced my earlier 'I dunno' agnosticism. In the short term, say a couple of hundred years, I also agree some of the effects of global warming would likely be catastrophic for a fair percentage of earth's population, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue ramping up.

I will set aside questioning the notion that there is some nameless Morksist leadership cabal driving all such conversions, and simply ask how you link a convert like me (or Shermer, for example) to the cabal?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is no evil thing that is done in the world as understood by "Adam Selene" that is not the result of a deliberately evil act by somebody. A news story reveals a statist slant? The only possible explanation is that the writer of the story deliberately slanted it that way, out of a total and conscious commitment to evil. An ambitious politician thinks he sees short-term advantage to his career in supporting Obamacare? The only possible explantation is that the politician in question is a dedicated Marxist, committed to total evil in all he says and does.

It would be comical, if it weren't so pathetic.

JR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you realize that Chomsky is stating the obvious but that pointing this out would put you in the cross hairs of every other poster on the only political board you participate in something is wrong.

Edited by Joel Mac Donald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you realize that Chomsky is stating the obvious but that pointing this out would put you in the cross hairs of every other poster on the only political board you participate in something is wrong.

Maybe not every other poster.

JR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you realize that Chomsky is stating the obvious but that pointing this out would put you in the cross hairs of every other poster on the only political board you participate in something is wrong.

Maybe there is a wee bit of truth in what you say. If you signal agreement with even one aspect of Chomsky, you might get tarred as a lackey of the morksist overlords, as an anti-industrialist 'death to humanity' kind of guy. Ted might rouse himself from his slumbers and emit one of his scorching intellectual death rays . . .

But seriously, unless you are an Objectivist yourself, and wish to avoid denunciation by fellow travelers, the worst you can expect is some form of toothless slavering. You face more chance of a biting injury from your bedroom slippers.

Chomsky reduces it to a probability calculation: is it more likely that Rush Limbaugh is right about global warming, or is it more likely that a majority of climate scientists are right about global warming?

I suspect that there are more than a few Objectivish folk who accept the fact of AGW, and who struggle with the implications for the future. Maybe they don't discuss these things for the same reason you tend to avoid it, being gummed to death.

Underlying Chomsky's 'we are doomed' reaction to political events are the facts he reported from Business Week. I think both Robert and Adam missed the implications of those facts. It's good news for those who want Congress to slow down or stop all effort to contain CO2 emissions. Here's some excerpts from the story:

"I am vindicated," says Republican Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, who was ridiculed by environmentalists in 2003 when he declared that man-made global warming was the "greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people."

He has reason to crow: His party's sweep of the midterm elections will bring into office almost four dozen new lawmakers (11 senators and at least 36 House members) who share his skepticism about climate change, according to ThinkProgress, an arm of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a Washington research group allied with Democrats. They join a smaller group of Republican incumbents, some of whom will assume powerful committee positions in January, who also reject that global warming is an immediate threat.

[ . . . ]

The day after the Nov. 2 elections, President Barack Obama acknowledged that the new balance of power requires him to scale back his environmental agenda. The President has all but scrapped plans for legislation that would require companies to buy and sell pollution allowances, a so-called cap-and-trade system. Even modest goals could be tough to realize. Republicans say they will seek to roll back Environmental Protection Agency rules, set to take effect in January, limiting carbon emissions, as well as restrictions on coal mining. They also may try to block billions of dollars in federal funds the Administration has directed to wind, solar, and other alternative sources, as well as electric-car technologies, areas Obama pitches as the manufacturing engines of the future.

[ . . . ]

Meanwhile, the number of Americans who agree the earth is warming because of man-made activity has been in free fall, dropping to 34 percent in October, from 50 percent in July 2006, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Now lawmakers who reject the notion that there is ironclad evidence of global warming are rising in seniority in the House. Representative Ralph M. Hall, a Texas Republican, is in line to chair the House Science and Technology Committee, which oversees numerous federal agencies conducting climate-change research. "Reasonable people have serious questions about our knowledge of the state of the science," Hall says. Representative John Shimkus of Illinois is vying to become chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. At a March 2009 hearing, he said the Bible teaches that climate change won't destroy the planet.

NB: Shimkus missed the chairmanship of the full committee; Hall scored.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not link [WSS] to any cabal. Schermer's 2006 "conversion" is based, he states, on the accumulation of evidence. I am not familiar about what evidence that he was referring to.

Why don't you get familiar, Adam? I thought you were interested enough in this issue to do some homework.

However, as you are aware, that is one of the framing issues that we will have to make as part of the debate we are going to have with five (5) participants.

I can't see any useful debate happening here at OL, Adam, frankly. You haven't yet answered my initial questions on the science fraud thread -- I consider that a test of good faith.

I mentioned Shermer because he actually did 'convert' to belief in AGW, unlike Singer or Chomsky. Neither of the latter two was previously a skeptic or agnostic. That was my point about 'conversion.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I wonder where Chomsky got his statistic from that "99% of the scientists" adhere to the global warming theory.

Since he reinforced this several times in the video you posted, he must have one helluva source.

From what I can discern from what Chomsky said, you have to shave off part of the one percent remaining because (according to him) they think it's even worse that the global warming people think.

So, according to Chomsky, we have the following scenario:

99% of all scientists adhere to man-made global warming

< 1% of all scientists think that the man-made global warming proposition is pussyfooting around the issue and it's far worse that anyone thinks

< 1% of all scientists (mistakenly) do not adhere to man-made global warming

The one main cause gumming up the works is Rush Limbaugh.

And if we spend gobs of money on combating man-made global warming and the theory is wrong, we should be spending gobs of money on combating man-made global warming anyway because it's the right thing to do (imagine if the theory is right!), so nothing's lost.

That's what I heard. Did you hear anything different?

Hmmmmmm...

Sounds reasonable.

Whatcha think?

Let's get out our checkbooks?

:)

btw - We should look into another massive funding effort we can fleece the public with easily get from government resources. This one would be for defense against aliens who want to attack the earth and eat us. Every single one of us and that ain't no shit. Stephen Hawking has been sounding the warning bell about this very danger. I have no doubt that 99% of the scientists agree with him.

Scoff if you will, but imagine if you are wrong!

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, I am at a disadvantage here. I am not a fan of Chomsky and I am not a fan of Limbaugh. Moreover, the influence of either of these people on my opinions on anthropogenic global warming is zero.

I am interested in discussion/debate on AGW. I don't know if you are or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am interested in discussion/debate on AGW. I don't know if you are or not.

William,

I tried to do that once here on OL. All that happened in practice was that a lot of people yelled at each other.

Viciously.

After looking at the size of the heist that was being set up with Cap and Trade and the Chicago Climate Exchange, and the false data being fed to the public from top scientists, and so on and so on and so on, I lost interest.

It's a dirty subject with dirty people involved. From what data I did look at, there is nothing at the present climate-wise that is anywhere near urgent.

I believe restoration is something that should not be ignored with scoffing, since I like clean rivers and polar bears, but the sky is definitely not falling. In the case of AGW--and probably for a long, long time to come--I believe a lot more in common sense than in science. The people who make messes should clean them up. And that's about as far as I am willing to go until repeatable results can be demonstrated.

Even the scientists are screaming at each other over this stuff. So how am I to judge when the experts are bashing each other?

All I can do is smell money. Gobs and gobs and gobs of money.

Frankly, I think they're all nuts.

There are too many elements operating in nature for anything more than speculation. Hell, they can't even predict the weather for the next week better than an educated guess.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...