Talk:Noam Chomsky

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Noam Chomsky. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Former featured article Noam Chomsky is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 13, 2004.
 · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Noam Chomsky:
List of objectives
  • Keep the article neutral. (Do not include irrelevant material that reflects disparagingly on Chomsky simply for the reason that it does so. In the same respect, do not delete relevant information that is disparaging simply because it is disparaging.)
  • Find "the last word" on some debates that have not been fully researched.
  • Try to include the above images in the article if possible.
  • Attain good article status.
WikiProject Echo      (Multiple languages)
Noam Chomsky has been identified by WikiProject Echo as a featured article on the Bulgarian, French, Hebrew and Portuguese Wikipedias. You may be able to improve the article on this project by drawing content, media or references from these articles. To get involved with WikiProject Echo or featured articles in other languages, visit the discussion page.
Version 0.5      (Rated A-Class)
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives

Contents



This article reads like a press release

How about some critism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.189.72 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Agreed, the quote: "a hero of Homeric proportions, belonging solidly in the pantheon of our country's finest minds, with all the powers and qualities thereof. First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary. He is, too, a born leader, able to marshal support, fierce and uncompromising support, for positions he develops or adopts. Often, it seems, he shapes linguistics by sheer force of will." is simply embarassing to read, lacks objectivity and has absolutely no place in the article. The fact that it is a citation of someone else's opinion does not change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.195.128.112 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a whole page (linked in this article) dedicated to non-objective criticism of Chomsky? CABlankenship (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
There's Criticism of Noam Chomsky, which is an intermittently interesting mess. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky antisemitism

Read behorehand: Anti-Semitism is impossible to equate with anti-Zionism/anti-Israel. Since Palestinians, Arabs, Egyptians, etc. all fall under the category of "Semites," given a particular speech conducive of the sentiments of say the group Hezbollah may qualify rather as pro-Semitic in some ways rather than anti-Semitic. This important fact is unfortunately often misrepresented by unknowing observers especially in the United States. 76.181.43.101 (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a misrepresentation at all, nor is the term used unknowingly when it's used in that way - in fact, antisemitism (please read that page) means "discrimination against Jews"; that is its only meaning. If you look up the term in a few good dictionaries [1] you'll find that I'm right. It's true that Arabs are also Semitic peoples, but that is irrelevant; your argument is almost as silly as if you were stating that a "carpet" must be a kind of car, or else a kind of pet. 72.128.205.249 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There are people who believe what you say, and as many who believe otherwise. Neither is "silly." Respect. 67.194.150.69 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this summary, critics base their beliefs on more than one or two issues, not just the Faurisson affair and a speech to a Palestinian group. Their reasons include Chomsky's support for Hezbollah retaining its weapons, support for Finkelstein, positions taken and things said in his debates with Dershowitz, etc. We shouldn't detail each of these in the article, of course, but an incomplete summary is easily misleading. That the accusations have been made is not, in any way, controversial. The accusations and debates are matters of established fact. The truth of those accusations is what are controversial and should be dealt with in a NPOV manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Ryan Wise 06:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your actions betray your mere pretense of commitment to NPOV. You have not only reinstated nebulous smearing allegations of “anti-semitism” emanating from dubious sources (see below), in deleting responses from the other side you have effectively refused any right of Chomsky to defend himself against such serious allegations. Balance requires that allegations of a serious (in fact potentially libelous) nature entail a more stringent burden of proof than normal claims as well as the opportunity of the target to defend oneself against such claims.
Let’s examine the “authority” that you are using to string together the perceived evidence and make the case for Chomsky’s so-called anti-semitism. Who exactly is Benjamin Kerstein? And why are his interpretations (his case hinges extensively upon highly subjective interpretations and extrapolations of some of Chomsky’s statements.) considered notable? In fact, Mr. Kerstein is an American student taking courses in Israel. He is also an unpublished novelist, and has for several years authored a blog, “Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite” characterized by overwrought ranting, Evidently, Kerstein’s qualifications are two-fold: 1) He has an obsessive loathing for Noam Chomsky and 2) David Horowitz and the functionaries of his lavishly funded propaganda outlets are naturally impressed by this kind of sensationalistic fodder. (That Kerstein’s criticisms are replete with misrepresentation and outright distortion is readily demonstrable.)
I have always wondered why there has been such a hasty insistency to thrust labels onto opponents in political discourse. The typical strategy of the accusers is to distort and misrepresent their subject so as to pretend that some stigmatizing label has justification. If the label is accepted by the reader at an early stage, so much the better; a rejectionist predisposition is thus internalized, further disinterested exploration becomes unnecessary. In fact a kind of psychological taboo is established against a sympathetic reading in an effort to understand what the subject really intends to say. The prejudice instilled by the labeling process renders any deeper exploration unworthy except as the target of predetermined denunciation and ridicule.
When Chomsky is associated with Finkelstein it is implied that is a self-evident fact that Finkelstein is anti-semitic, when in reality this is a highly controversial example of labeling not readily disassociated from the political motivations of Finkelstein’s accusers. The support of Finkelstein’s work, not just by Chomsky but also by notable figures such as Raul Hilberg (originator of Holocaust studies) and Oxford historian Avi Shlaim suggests that Finkelstein presents arguments that are well worth considering; however, inviting readers to engage in a process leading to a comprehensive understanding of events and their relation to persisting and evolving institutional structures is exactly what the accusers wish to avoid. Instead they use labeling tactics to stigmatize a target in an attempt to impair any chance of informed deliberation.
Similar motives are at work when support of Hezbollah’s policy “retaining its arms”, unless certain conditions are met, is cited as some sort of self-evident example of anti-semitism. It certainly is a controversial issue, and notable arguments have been made from several different perspectives; but the hasty resort to "anti-semitic" labeling only undermines the posssibility of the kind of constructive discussion which is probably the only peaceful route out of an extremely complex dilemma. The appeal is to the simplistic black and white depiction in US/Israeli propaganda of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, ignoring the organic link between the organization and the constituency by which its enjoys broad support, particularly for its provision of an array of vital social services, and representation in Lebanese parliamentary and municipal political governance. All this must be ignored and of course, Hezbollah must be presented as a monolithic entity, with all actions ascribed to it emanating from the great satan Nasrallah. Also ignored are the legitimate apprehensions that shi’ and many other Lebanese feel concerning the possibility of Israeli military aggression (established by the precedent of repeated invasions,in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and most recently 2006, as well as awareness of joint US-Israel plans for a crushing attack on Hezbollah.) To this we might also note the incapacity of the Lebanese government, both because of its current sectional political structure and the fact that the Lebanon government has the highest per capita national debt in the world(largely due to successive Israeli military devstations) to provide effective security. Nor are the implications of an unconditional disarmament for the tangled of political balance in their national and wider geo-political contexts worth considering as legitimate reasons unassociated with anti-semitism. Nor yet again the fact that significant non-Shi’ elements, including large elements of the Christian community (ie: The Free Political Movement) also view the Hezbollah as a resistance movement and moreover the only viable military deterrent against Israeli aggression in the current situation. Does their support of Hezbollah’s current right to bear arms also imply antisemitism by definition or is it perhaps necessary to understand their reasons and listen to their qualifications? Finally as Chomsky notes, “The United States could provide a credible guarantee that Israel will not attack, undercutting the argument for retention of arms. But there are no signs of that.” (Chomsky-Achcar- Perilous Power- The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy.)BernardL 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore if, according to the way you present your criticism - a description of overwhelming privilege and power enjoyed by American Jews constitutes "proof" of anti-semitism shall we then conclude from the following similar remarks that historian Raul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews) is anti-semite too?

"The American Jewish community is the wealthiest and most successful in the world. Already ten years ago there were 18 Jewish billionaires, now there are many more. One of them is Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and one of the main shareholders of Seagrams. These people could put an end to poverty among Holocaust survivors within one week." (interview: Berliner Zeitung , September 4, 2000)BernardL 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Be serious now. The criticisms exist. If you want to present Chomsky's counterarguments, do so. How have I kept Chomsky from "defending himself?" I haven't argued against the inclusion of any text. Censorship is your goal, not mine. The statements of his critics (who are also living) have not been acurately represented, and should be, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Apparently your view of "balance" and NPOV requires deletion of factual material that you don't agree with. That Chomsky's opponents have taken certain positions is fact. Whether you agree with those opinions is irrelevant. The precise nature of the criticisms, and how Chomsky responds is the matter for debate. It's bogus to say that we can only include criticisms that you personally agree with.
If you want to demonstrate that prominent critics misrepresent Chomsky, go right ahead. Create a separate page for it, if you need to go into detail. But what you're pushing for now is censorship of views you don't like, pure and simple, not the right to respond. Look, the criticisms do exist, and come from prominent sources. Right or wrong, they should be represented, and accurately. They aren't now, and have been regularly twisted or elimiated.
It is a fact that people have used certain lines of argument to make certain accusations. Would you like to argue that Horowitz has made a different argument than what has been presented? Go ahead. But who is right and who is wrong is not up to you to decide, as strong and unflagging as your opinion might be.
however, inviting readers to engage in a process leading to a comprehensive understanding of events and their relation to persisting and evolving institutional structures is exactly what the accusers wish to avoid. -- Great. We can further such an understanding of this issue using Chomsky's arguments counterposed with those of his critics, if that's really what you want. Somehow, though, I get the (rather ironic) feeling that you'd rather the issue not be discussed.

--Ryan Wise 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky spoke about this when the page was sent to him, he responded with what he thought about the criticisms that were outlandish like this one. I think if you'd look it up (it's in the archives on this talk page) it might be suggestive as to how to continue. q 01:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky in culture?

Shouldn't there be a section of Chomsky in American pop culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear300 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats there been? A passing name drop in Good Will Hunting and...? LamontCranston (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What about when Bart Simpson mentioned his name? And wasn't he referenced in the film "The Matrix"? I thought that I heard him discussed by Charlie Brown in a Peanuts episode. Lestrade (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

No idea about the first. For the second, the Wachowskis are so intent on obscurantist references that maybe theres something there probably linguistic, otherwise maybe you are thinking of the book Simulacra and Simulation that appeared? For the third, I think you might have that confused with a Peanuts strip that someone photoshopped to portray Linus and Lucy discussing Chomsky? LamontCranston (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher?

Due to comments I made under a YouTube video (in which I claimed Chomsky was *not* a philosopher), people saw fit to add the claim that he is a philosopher to this Wikipedia article. However, reading through this article, and pretty much anything else about him I can find, I don't see how there is sufficient support for the claim that he is a philosopher. Not one single article amongst the numerous shown here is directed primarily at philosophy. One might claim that the things he does has implications to philosophy, but then the same could be said of Einstein, Newton or anyone else who has changed our understanding of reality. There is no such thing as "The Chomskyian philosophy", he doesn't write books on philosophy. His "eyes glaze over" comment about post-structuralism etc makes it clear that he doesn't just disagree with a particular philosophy, he considers it nonsense because it *IS* philosophy. For these reasons, I think the claim that he is a philosophy either needs to be substantiated, or simply deleted. Qed (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I added the fact that Chomsky was a philosopher months ago. Had nothing to do with your YouTube comments. What's the connection? It's easily proven that he is a philosopher. Look him up in any dictionary of philosophy (Cambridge, Routledge, any others), and he's always listed as a philosopher. Cambridge lists him as "a preeminent American linguist, philosopher, and political activist," and that "Chomsky's best-known scientific achievement is the establishment of a rigorous and philosophically compelling foundation for the scientific study of the grammar of natural language" (138). Later on, the text notes his "most significant contributions to philosophy" like his "influential rejection of behaviorism" and his "adherence to methodological naturalism." Furthermore, I suggest you read the following paper which draws numerous connections of his to philosophy ("Chomsky Amid the Philosophers"). A great many of his texts on language can and in fact are considered philosophy. He is not a postmodernist for concrete reasons, not because it is philosophical. His work is pretty firmly within the Analytic tradition. His status as a philosopher is unimpeachable.Grunge6910 (talk)

Of course *Philosophers* call him a philosopher. Its the same way that black people like to call Barak Obama or Tiger Wood black (they are both mixed race, of course.) I would like to call Chomsky a computer scientist for his creation of "Chomsky Normal Form", however, and this is the point, I highly doubt that *HE* would self-identify as a computer science, and for good reason -- he doesn't do computer science. He just does things which have implications in computer science. (Similarly, neither Charles Darwin nor Francis Crick are considered the inventors of genetic programming, though clearly it follows from their work.)
"A philosophically compelling foundation ..." Oh for crying out loud. He created (or nearly so) the very hard *SCIENCE* of linguistics which *OBSOLETED* prior nonsense spouted by philosophers who will have nothing to do with intellectual accountability. A side effect of his contribution has been the *REMOVAL* of philosophy from linguistics. Similarly Cantor put to rest the very meaning of infinite once and for all (although you will certainly still find philosophers to this day who can't wrap their mind around it) -- nobody calls Cantor a philosopher just because Wittgenstein was crying like a baby about what he said. I mean why do you find yourself reaching so far to find an *adverb* attribution of philosophy to Chomsky. If he is a philosopher, why doesn't he come out and just say it? Why is it so incredibly difficult to find direct evidence of it? You are making a claim about the *occupation* of an incredibly well known public figure and you can barely find even this flimsy evidence about it?
The paper you cite is a nonsensical attempt to apply the label of philosopher to the point of containing clear errors: Chomsky as a rationalist? Chomsky has on many occasions referred to specific empirical evidence in supporting his work, which is essentially non-rationalist. There are papers calling Chomsky anti-semetic, a liar, anti-american, etc, etc. Why don't you put those in the description of him? You put those in "Criticisms of Chomsky" for a reason -- you need to clearly identify that this is what *OTHER* people are saying about him, and you need to supply citations of what they are saying and why they say it (so someone researching the criticism can analyze the argument).
Look, Daniel Dennet is a philosopher. Evidence of this is so obvious its not even worth discussing but the most important of which is that he clearly self-identifies as a philosopher as he produces books and paper on the subject. Of course Chomsky has diverse interests which you might claim dilutes such evidence, but there is clear evidence of him being a leftist activist, an anarchist sympathizer and a linguist, in all cases by overt self-identification (one can easily compile just YouTube clips of each instance). If one asks what the Chomsky school of thought is, they will give you his linguistic theories, not his philosophy. If you ask what Chomsky's philosophy is directly, people will tell you he is a leftist and espouses "The Principle of Universality". If you ask him what he thinks of philosophy itself you find him making critical remarks about post-structuralism, not because he disagrees with it, but because he disagrees with the frame of mind necessary to even take it seriously.
You can't call me a skier because I have skied. You cannot call me a painter because I have painted. You cannot call me a musician because I've played an instrument in the past. You cannot call me a wine taster because I have tasted wine. Chomsky is no more a philosopher than *I* am a philosopher (and I assure you I am not.)
Without more serious substantiation, it is simply an inappropriate characterization of him. Qed (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If the fact that all dictionaries of philosophy characterize him as a philosopher, that he has written about and teaches philosophy of language, that his work has been scrutinized and discussed by philosophers within the context of the field, and that he subscribes to certain philosophical ideas and traditions, isn't enough evidence for you, I don't know what else could satisfy you.

Given all that, especially the characterization of him as a "philosopher" by professional philosophers and reference texts, I think it's more than justified in listing him as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to weigh in here?Grunge6910 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC).

Is that seriously your justification? Some dictionary of self-interested philosophers feel the need to claim a serious intellectual amongst their ranks even though he himself just barely stops short of denouncing the entire field himself? That isn't even close to satisfying me. You must get it from him or his writings -- you are trying to establish what he does, and cannot get quotations from him, his employers (except by indirect claims of "Philosophy of ..." by which reason, of course, you could claim anyone with a PhD as a philosopher) or his book publishers to substantiate your claim?
Go reread the issue about "The Faurisson affair" in the criticism section: Faurisson quotes Chomsky in his book, but clearly oversteps the bounds by claiming Chomsky as a supporter for his point of view (Holocaust denial). Then people start calling Chomsky a holocaust denier (a claim so ridiculous it can only be a reflection on how stupid people are) as a result. Chomsky himself had to clarify his position, try to explain to people what freedom of speech is, and that its not the same thing as supporting such a view. Faurisson was claiming Chomsky amongst his ranks because of some ridiculous indirect stretching of some perceived support, and relied on general ignorance of the subtle difference in the population (which apparently was real and true amongst some) even in the face of specific denials by Chomsky and a very obvious inability to build a real case outside this indirect evidence.
Now compare this to what you are doing. You have these indirect claims that Chomsky is a philosopher, quoting entirely from people with a vested interest in calling him a philosopher and have not one iota of a case outside of this (ignoring the prima facie negative case). Even in citing a book you claim proves that he is a philosopher you don't dare actually quote FROM IT. Chomsky himself says he has no philosophical point of view. You are basically rerunning "The Faurisson affair" against him, except rather than calling him a holocaust denier, you are calling him a philosopher.
And you think its ok to do this, why? Because being a philosopher is some honor while being a holocaust denier is not? He decries it and you cannot make a serious case that he IS a philosopher. You are only making a case that PHILOSOPHERS call him a philosopher, which is insufficient. If I put down that Chomsky is a juggling enthusiast, and I find a bunch of juggling enthusiasts who embrace the idea that Chomsky is a juggler (its possible; juggling is a kind of marginal activity and the increased exposure by being associated to such an intellect would also appeal to the natural quirkiness that's associated with juggling), do you think that would be good enough for me to put that in his biography as well? Commentary by philosophers just doesn't cut it.
Oh and just because he teaches a course entitled "Philosophy of Language", he is a philosopher? So is everyone with a Doctorate in Philosophy a philosopher as well? Are atheists theologians?
If you want to "satisfy" me show his philosophical contributions that is more than philosophers REACTIONS to his SCIENTIFIC or POLITICAL activities. For example you could show me a dissertation by him on the meaning of existence, or justification for truth or something of that nature. Dennet, for example, in a recent talk explained that people don't generally believe in god, but rather believe in the the belief of god. Nobody can deny that that is philosophy first and that its religious implications are secondary (i.e., Dennet is NOT a theologian, though his philosophy has implications to theology). This is philosophy, and the case is easily and obviously made. When Chomsky talks about principles and parameters, or the social conditions of indigenous people, or the failures of government the philosophical implications or points of view on those things are so clearly the furthest thing from his mind. He cares about proving his point with empirical evidence; the activities of straight up scientific mind, not a philosophical one. So you need to show me something else that Chomsky has done that makes for a convincing case that he engages in philosophy.
To satisfy me, you will certainly have to present new material from Chomsky that I have not seen before, that shows him engaging in philosophy (note that this is different from "engaging with philosophers"). And then to make the case you would have to demonstrate that this was a common activity of his. Then, of course, you would probably have to have a section in the article entitled Philosophy of Noam Chomsky (or something very similar which would substantiate the claim that he is a philosopher) just as there is a whole article dedicated to Politics of Noam Chomsky. I mean even in the Influence in other fields section not one philosopher or even philosophical idea is mentioned. Qed (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you're not going to be convinced by anything, but anyway. Simply by looking at his list of publications throws up a number of articles of his which would be considered to be in the field of philosophy (and published in philosophy journals and books).81.23.56.53 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It's perhaps helpful to say *why* philosophical reference works list Chomsky as a philosopher. i.e. he's contributed to philosophy. Read the following entries, which are in addition to those cited on the main page. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Simon Blackburn. 2nd ed 2005: entry for Chomsky: "American linguist, philosopher, and political activist..." A Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Antony Flew, 1979, entry for Chomsky: "American linguistic scientist and philosopher.", the entry goes on to say, "His work on linguistics also has a bearing on philosophy, notably on disputes between empiricists and rationaists..." --Dannyno (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is pretty infuriating. Its like you haven't bothered to read what I said at all. With the level of supporting evidence you just gave, you cannot claim that Chomsky is a philosopher unless in the same breath you also call him a holocaust denier. You must obtain credible evidence from NON-PHILOSOPHERS -- the most obvious candidate being something from his own writings, or from interviews with him. Come on! A philosopher: One who engages in the art of philosophy. As evidenced by ________? Fill the blank!
Can you imagine if some struggling circus started claiming Chomsky was a trapeze artist and others circuses just endorsed this claim? What if a bunch of comedians claimed Chomsky was actually a private stand-up comic, or that he secretly wrote all their jokes? What if a bunch of bird watchers or stamp collectors claimed Chomsky amongst their ranks? You wouldn't go to those people or their publications to verify it. That's laughably preposterous. You would be immediately and forcibly compelled either to ask him, or look for a citation amongst HIS writings or find some other external non-interested 3rd party confirmation of such information. You simply have not met this standard here.
You must also explain why Wikipedia doesn't claim Cantor was a philosopher. He redefined infinity much to the distress of Wittgenstein. His discoveries had enormous impact on philosophers -- it made them shut up about infinity, since they clearly had no idea what they were talking about on the subject.
Ridiculous statements like "It sounds like you're not going to be convinced by anything" is ad hominem. This is your argument: Somebody says "Chomsky is a member of my club because me and other members of my club say he is and members of my club has to react to things Chomsky says. Therefore Chomsky is part of my club". All the citations provided, are just a repetition of this same argument. Its true the repeating the identical argument over and over will not convince me. But some form of actual evidence will. Qed (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(Update:) Ok, so I painstaking looked through that entire list of Chomsky's publications. They are covered almost entire of the following subjects: Linguistics, Psychology/Cognitive science, Politics, Computer Science,
The only exceptions that are in *possible* support of your case is
1) "Comments: Galen Strawson, Mind Reality". His considerations for the mind usually lean towards congitive science and psychology, but I would need to see this quoted or read it for myself to be sure.
2) "A Companions to the Philosophy of Mind" which I managed to read from the Amazon "Search Inside" feature, and its clear that he's taking a purely scientific and psychological point of view for trying to understand the mind and does not pose one single philosophical question or idea, nor makes reference to any philosophical ideas. He also states up front that he was asked about his thoughts and wrote a reply, as he commonly does probably without knowing into what book it would ultimately be included until after wards. I.e., this is evidence of him being a philosopher in the same way that the recent Hustler magazine article he wrote is evidence that he supports pornography.
3) "Plato had Access to the Switch" which I have no idea what to make of; apparently its in Italian. Published in the same magazine where he also published a clearly Linguistic article 2 days earlier ("At the Sources of Speech")
4) "Exchanges on Reconstructive Knowledge". The abstract for this is given as:
In this volume, physicists and social scientists challenge the bedrock of scientific thinking whose applications can prove destructive to existing social systems, and shift the debate to the need for a radical change of direction that would replace traditional "value-free" inquiry and research with a knowledge model that incorporates social responsibility, democratic principles, and comprehensive ethical standards.
which is probably just a combination of his scientific outlook and his political/social-science outlook.
5) “Reply to Putnam.” In Readings in Philosophy of Psychology 2, which I am almost sure is a reply to someone responding to his thing about B.F.Skinner, which is a purely scientific (specifically: behaviorism) debate.
6) “Reply to R. Wardhaugh.” College English. Again, I have no idea on this one.
7) And here's the funniest one of them all: “The relevance of scientific linguistics to philosophy.” Paper presented to a session of the Western Branch of the American Philosophical Association, Minneapolis (May 1966): 1-25. Unpublished. Did you notice that last word there? UNPUBLISHED. Even if he WANTED to be a philosopher, here's a philosophical association that refuses to publish him.
8) “What is Said to Be.” cowritten by Israel Scheffler. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, is the only one here that seems to be genuinely about Philosophy, and Analytical Philosophy at that (apparently having something to do with ontology).
So in all those ridiculous amounts of writings, there is one book from the very early years of his career. Now if you people were honest, you could 1) Dig up the examples I give above and settle the matter by their real content (including #8, which is the only real example, I think) 2) find other publications by him to make your case, and more importantly cite some amount of text written by him to explain the case. And if you do call him a philosopher based on the #8 citation above alnoe, say so in the article, and explain why you think this evidence is worthy. Qed (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He majored in philosophy you asshat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I majored in Mathematics. Does that make me a mathematician? If so why did I take up an occupation programming computers and why have I never published any mathematical papers? I personally know at least one person who has earned a degree in philosophy and who most definitely is not professional philosopher. Qed (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose as a point aimed at your rather silly remark about a philosophical publication refusing to publish him, as well as at your stubbornness in general is this. He has at least one paper published in Mind, which is notoriously difficult to be published in, as it is one of the best philosophy journals in the UK, as well as worldwide. It is also purely a philosophy journal, the article was published in 1995, which may or may not count as recent to you. Nonetheless, it is still one of the several (not that there need to be several) papers that he has published in philosophy, in philosophy journals. Being published in Mind pretty much guarantees that you count as a philosopher. BTW, the paper in question is 'Language and Nature', Mind, New Series, Vol. 104, No. 413 (Jan., 1995), pp. 1-61. 81.23.56.53 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why being published in Mind makes anyone a philosopher and I don't see why anyone reading Wikipedia would be similarly convinced, especially if they were not a philosopher. But for crying out loud, if what you say is the case, you need not do anything more than simply QUOTE FROM THAT ARTICLE to prove your point. Why is this so hard? Why are you constantly keeping the evidence at arms length? There's more credible evidence for the Loch Ness monster than what you are providing.
Look, just substitute "white supremist" for the word "philosopher" and ask yourself what standard you would have to meet to establish that he was that. No testimony from white supremists would be good enough and neither would republications of his articles in their literature. You would have to go to the substances of the articles (or speeches or behavior or whatever), obviously. Given HIS negative comments about philosophy, it seems pretty clear that you are in fact FORCED to go to that level of detail to substantiate the case. Qed (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that Chomsky has actively engaged in philosophy for his entire career, as substantiated by the references I provided in the lead, it is completely absurd to assert that he has made "negative comments about philosophy." He has made negative comments about certain branches of philosophy -- basically the Continental school, specifically postmodernism and its cousins. This is a far cry from making "negative comments about philosophy" as a whole. 66.30.220.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC).

Add category

{{Editsemiprotected}}

Add Category:Computer pioneers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.76.64 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-18T11:07:17

Done —Ms2ger (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Peacock verbiage

There is a lot of peacock verbiage in the article, calling Chomsky a "hero" and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Chomsky has not made the slightest discovery in genuine linguistics, such as the Bantu group, the Indo-European group or the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.73.76 (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The "hero" quote from "Linguistics Wars" is valid, but could possibly be moved into a "legacy" section. Chomsky is 80 years old now, so it's probably an appropriate time to begin discussing such things. CABlankenship (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Retired or not?

The article currently reads as follows: "As of 2008, Chomsky has taught at MIT continuously for 53 years."

Yet on MIT's homepage it says: "Professor Chomsky retired from the Linguistics Section as of January 15, 2002."

So, does he still teach at MIT or not? What's his current status at MIT? (I do believe he still holds an office there.)

--Kvaks (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

He still teaches. If you check the course schedule on the Linguistic MIT page, it says he's co-teaching a graduate course next semester. Grunge6910 (talk)

Fish or fowl?

What does he consider to be his main occupation? Is he a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, Socratic gadfly, author, lecturer, professional intellectual, political pundit, national conscience? He might well be all of these, but does he consider himself to have one essential, characteristic occupation?Lestrade (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Subjective opinion

The following sentence in the first part of the article is a subjective opinion: First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. It reflects the particular zeal of the writer and possibly may not be descriptive of Chomsky. In order to verify his "smartness," we would have to objectively evaluate his writings and speeches, which are controversial and are not always well received . To stagger is to totter, reel, or lose balance. This adverb has no relationship to the adjective "smart." The sentence merely expresses the writer's enthusiasm.Lestrade (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I hadn't noticed that. In fact that second paragraph had alot of commentary on top of that sentence. I have removed it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That phrase you quoted is not used to describe his philosophical writings or political activism, but instead to describe his contributions to the field of linguistics. Noam Chomsky has literally revolutionized the field of linguistics. It’s no wonder why he’s been named the father of modern linguistics, and that fact has been acknowledged by numerous scholars throughout the years.

That particular opinion you're referring to, comes from a fellow and distinguished linguistics professor, and is intended to highlight the prominence of Chomsky within that field, which in the end is very relevant to the article itself. Likeminas (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of Chomsky's influence in the field of linguistics and indeed it should be made clear in this article that he is considered "the father of modern linguistics" by various scholars in the subject. The problem with this is that it is not presented as a quote by a fellow linguist but rather as fact and in doing so it gives off a feeling of WP:SYN i.e., a user using a published material in order to advance their own position. For instance the phrase "First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary" isn't in quotations. Is this part of the quote of the referenced linguist or is it the personal opinion of the person who wrote that part of the article? Regardless I don't object to the content, I object to the way it is presented. If you wish place it back but please do so by referencing the author of the quote in the text i.e, linguist Randy Harris says of Chomsky "...".--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
One can take or leave Chomsky's politics, but his contributions to science are difficult to overestimate. He not only revolutionized linguistics, but he also profoundly affected biology, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and philosophy. Few figures loom as large over 20th century science as Chomsky. John Maynard Smith, one of the greatest 20th century biologists, actually called him one of the half-dozen greatest intellects of the century. Considering all of the hatred and lies out there about this man's work, I feel that the quote should remain.CABlankenship (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you want me to use the blockquote tag?
Perhaps, I’m not following Wikipedia’s standard etiquette, but I thought that in order to quote some one, these “ ” would suffice.
In any case, the text being removed is the following (and please take a look at the reference)

Within that field, he has been described as "a hero of Homeric proportions, belonging solidly in the pantheon of our country's finest minds, with all the powers and qualities thereof. First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary. He is, too, a born leader, able to marshal support, fierce and uncompromising support, for positions he develops or adopts. Often, it seems, he shapes linguistics by sheer force of will."1

As I said before, the commentary done by another linguist is primarily used to describe Chomsky’s great influence on the field of linguistics and it’s completely unrelated to his “controversial” or "not well received" views, as the other user argues.
I don’t see nor I understand why it’s being removed.
Likeminas (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to mention specific contributions that Chomsky has made to the field of linguistics. It is another thing to make a broad, general statement about his entire inner mental constitution by using the gushing phrase "staggeringly smart."Lestrade (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

If I’m not mistaken your initial argument claimed that “In order to verify his "smartness," we would have to objectively evaluate his writings and speeches, which are controversial and are not always well received.” Obviously that was a straw man, since the quote in question was in the context of his contributions to the field of linguistics and, again, not about his philosophical or political views.
Now, I see a shift in language in order to keep that commentary out in the shadows. The question now seems to be; is it appropriate for a linguist scholar to praise the father of modern linguistics in a manner that to some might come across as too enthusiastic? I personally don't think so.
Given that the man is the most cited person alive and is up there with Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato and Freud2 seems to me like his linguist colleague is not really exaggerating a bit about his this man's smartness.
The prominence and intellectual stature of Chomksy deserve a mention like the one given by that professor. Omitting it simply amounts to blatant disregard of those facts.
Likeminas (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Seems to me" that anyone "up there" with Marx and Lenin (ignoring the events of 1985–1991) is "staggeringly smart." No exaggeration!Lestrade (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I assume that's intended to be in a political way, just like your initial argument.
I personally don't care a tiny little bit whether you dislike Lenin or Marx, nor I think it is of any relevance to the issue at hand. I pointed out that he's the most cited scholar alive, and his works are comparably referenced as much as works like the bible or people such as Karl Marx only to put into perspective the magnitude of prominence. Nonetheless, it's rather interesting and honestly quite amusing to see your previous comments attacking him as a public figure.
It's now clear to me, that you have a personal bias toward this man, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinions but no to your facts, and certainly you can't change the fact that he's a prominent figure in the intellectual world, much less you could within the field of Linguistics.
I will be re-adding the quotation that was deleted with its appropriate reference as I extensivley stated the reasons why it's relevant to the article. If you have any other arguments objecting the addition of that quote besides the recurrent ad hominem, straw man or red herrings please, post them here.
Likeminas (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Universal grammar

The article claims that "Children are hypothesized to have an innate knowledge of the basic grammatical structure common to all human languages …This innate knowledge is often referred to as universal grammar." Chomsky's innate universal grammar has never been seen or measured. It may be a mere fiction. Is this the profound contribution that resulted in the staggering judgment that "his contributions to science are difficult to overestimate. He not only revolutionized linguistics, but he also profoundly affected biology, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and philosophy. Few figures loom as large over 20th century science as Chomsky … one of the greatest 20th century biologists, actually called him one of the half-dozen greatest intellects of the century"?Lestrade (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Tedious nonsense. You shouldn't plague others with your ignorance of science. I could give a whit about his silly opinions on politics. You want to smear hard science simply because you don't like the guy. That's your right, of course, but please don't pretend to understand the first thing about biology, especially not with your creationist prattle. We have never "seen or measured" the evolution of man. Should we discard that also? You simply don't understand science. Only cranks still dispute the notion that there is an innate component to language with all of the massive genetic evidence we have that this is true. Do a google for the foxp2 gene, for instance.CABlankenship (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tedium is subjective. What is tedious for one person is interesting and stimulating for another person. When you say "I could give a whit," you should have said "I couldn't give a whit." By asking a simple question, I am smearing hard science? Is innate universal grammar a concept of "hard" science? What is "creationist" about my prattle? "Cranks" once disputed Ptolemy's geocentric universe. Calling people "cranks" is not a logical way to discuss these topics. If innate universal grammar is truly supported by "massive genetic evidence," then my question has been answered and Chomsky may be right. If not, then it is permissable to question Chomsky's hypothesis, at the risk, of course, of being called a "crank."Lestrade (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

~UG was not a hypothesis, it was a theory. It's now an established fact within biology. The creationist aspect of your prattle was your denial of scientific facts that are not "seen or measured". Typically, I only hear such rubbish from the young-earth creationists. Regardless, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about science. CABlankenship (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, "Children are hypothesized to have an innate knowledge of the basic grammatical structure common to all human languages." Should we change that? It is my understanding, however, that innate universal grammar is not an established fact. I believe that a person can be a non–creationist and yet can question concepts that are based on unseen and unmeasured mental constructions. Such questioning does not show a fundamental lack of understanding about science. For example, I have a perfect right to question the existence of gravitational waves or the luminiferous ether because they have never been seen or measured.Lestrade (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

The pages on UG in WIKI are terrible and woefully out of date. Even before recent evidence, no serious biologist questioned that there is an innate component to language. If you understand evolution, then you understand that some aspect of language is innate, or it's simply a miracle. There is no possible way to explain language if we are to believe that it must be learned in total. There is no possible way to explain the way a child acquires language without an innate component. This should just be obvious, but some people (untrained in biology) just don't seem to get it. Chomsky has made many enemies in his time, and this leads to layman attempts to discredit his scientific work. In the end, we'll probably just need a new term, since UG has been so universally attacked by people who oppose his politics. It's sad, really. Chomsky's work on this matter has been profoundly important to biology.

Just consider the obvious: everyone knows that children have a remarkable ability to quickly learn language, even without being taught to do so. All they need to do is hear the language being spoken, and within no time at all they have mastered it. This does not hold true with other subjects--young children do not learn mathematics or other activities with the same astonishing speed. So it's either a pre-programmed and hardwired response (somewhat like puberty, menopause, &c,), or it's a full-blown miracle. CABlankenship (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to try to advance science through the use of reason and rational argumentation. Your disjunctive (either/or) statement that language learning is either innate or miraculous assumes that the logical law of excluded middle applies to the world of experience. This may not be the case. There may be other premises that have not yet been experienced or theorized.Lestrade (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
It is not a good idea to try to advance science through the use of reason and rational argumentation. Having read this perplexing assertion, I then return to the real world. Pinkville (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost bust up laughing reading that. Look, in science we cannot stop to theorize untestable epistemological exceptions. For instance, the statement: "God did it" is of no use to science, even if it's technically possible, and even if it has explanatory power. There may be some mysterious law of language (quantum mechanics?) of which we are unaware, but we have no need of such a hypothesis when we already have an explanation that is falsifiable and testable. All evidence to this point supports the notion that humans have an innate language faculty. You seem to insist that we remain open to unnamed and fantastical solutions to this problem, yet you present no alternatives--nor has anyone else. In the meantime, I challenge you to find one respectable biologist who disputes that the ability to learn a language is innate. On my side, just of the higher end scientists, I can list Richard Dawkins, J.Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, Hauser, Orr, J.Diamond, G.C. Williams, E.O. Wilson. I know of no scientists who agree with you that this theory is inadequate and we need to look for mysterious skyhooks. There is no reason at all to accept your position. Of course language evolved. Of course it is innate. You don't understand the argument. CABlankenship (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

After experiencing Koko's language abilities, we may decide that Chomsky's innate universal grammar is not only a property of human brains. I notice that my Poodle reacts in different ways when she hears certain words. This also applies to Washoe, Nim Chimpsky, and Chantek. (According to the Wikipedia article on Nim Chimpsky, Noam Chomsky claimed that only humans are "hard–wired" for language.) Universal grammar's innateness may be only potential, rather than actual. It may become active in particular circumstances and otherwise remain dormant. Innateness is an interesting condition. Does it exist before birth or only from birth? How could we tell? Is the ability to generate children innate? Is the ability to understand causes of perceived effects innate? Is the ability to fight infection by producing pus innate (innate universal suppuration)? Is the ability to cry innate (innate universal lachrymosity)? Is the ability to add numbers innate? Is the ability to fight enemies innate? What characteristics are innate only for humans and not for other animals? Chomsky's innate universal grammar is certainly a topic that is worth thinking about. The Wikipedia article can help puzzled readers to better understand this complicated topic and appreciate Chomsky's contribution that "revolutionized linguistics, but…also profoundly affected biology, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and philosophy" surely making him "one of the half-dozen greatest intellects of the century" if not of all time.Lestrade (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
  1. After experiencing Koko's language abilities, we may decide that Chomsky's innate universal grammar is not only a property of human brains. And then again, we may not. I think it's safe to say that only a minority of linguists concede that hairy apes, parrots, poodles, chinchillas and others have an ability in language as a whole (as opposed to vocabulary or phonetic perception in isolation) that's anything like that (whether spoken or signed) of a human. And by "linguists" here I'm not referring to the more or less Chomskyan. One of the most readable of genuine linguists is Geoff Pullum, a ruthless critic of various aspects of Chomsky's work and of the notion of stimulus poverty in particular, and generally a sceptic of nativism. Here's Pullum on what he calls the stupid fake pet communication tricks of non-humans in general and the celebrated N'kisi in particular.
  2. [UG is] now an established fact within biology. You surprise me, given the degree of well-informed opposition within cognitive science to UG. (Consider the writings of Michael Tomasello, for example.) Where are the authoritative statements that UG is an established fact within biology?
  3. When you say "I could give a whit," you should have said "I couldn't give a whit." No, he/she perhaps should have said "I could(n't) give a shit": "shit" is here more idiomatic than "whit"; still, people are free to improvise, or of course to euphemize. Meanwhile, the insistence on "n't" seems curiously Brit-o-centric; such utterances as "I could care less" are fully idiomatic in the US, I believe.
    Hoary (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion on this matter is highly strange. You are of course correct that few linguists (and few biologists) would argue that non-human communication is "anything like" human language. But I fail to see how this fact serves to work against the idea that language evolved in humans, or how it explains its existence. Are you saying that language did not evolve? Are you saying that language is not all that peculiar and is simply a byproduct of the big human brain? Do you contend infant language-learning is just a coincidence, or a wild mystery that can't possibly be explained in darwinian terms? Chomsky has been one of the steady opponents of the idea that non-humans have language, so your use of this as an argument against UG is odd. If the ability of infants to spontaneously learn language independent of teaching is not evolved, perhaps you have some radical new theory that explains how complex features can be created apart from natural selection? If not, perhaps you can direct me toward these luminaries. You pointed me toward Tomasello, who is clearly exaggerating his objection to UG. What he proposes is merely that other evolved features create an effect rather like Gould's "spandrel", where other adaptations came to be used for language, but this is a point Chomsky readily accepts as possible. Tomasello's real disagreement is more with Pinker than with Chomsky, but that doesn't sell as many books. Tomasello's disagreement is hype and semantics, things which are typical of such efforts. CABlankenship (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
You are of course correct that few linguists (and few biologists) would argue that non-human communication is "anything like" human language. Thank you. ¶ But I fail to see how this fact serves to work against the idea that language evolved in humans, or how it explains its existence. Me too. ¶ Are you saying that language did not evolve? No. ¶ Are you saying that language is not all that peculiar and is simply a byproduct of the big human brain? No. ¶ Do you contend infant language-learning is just a coincidence, or a wild mystery that can't possibly be explained in darwinian terms? No. Although I wonder why you are interested in what I think. ¶ Chomsky has been one of the steady opponents of the idea that non-humans have language, so your use of this as an argument against UG is odd. What I find much odder is your inference that I was arguing against UG or that I was using the non-acquisition of language by non-humans as a plank to anything else. But perhaps you are addressing somebody other than myself. ¶ If the ability of infants to spontaneously learn language independent of teaching is not evolved, perhaps you have some radical new theory that explains how complex features can be created apart from natural selection? I'm sure that all readers of this page will breath a huge sigh of relief, pardon the cliche, when I promise not to burden them with any Grand Theory of my own. ¶ You seem a curiously bellicose writer. If "Tomasello's disagreement" is so easily dismissed as "hype and semantics", I wonder how he has got where he has got, how he has stayed there, and how he is invited as a guest lecturer by, and given a respectful (if sceptical) hearing by, university departments in which UG and Minimalism are prominent. ("OR" tells me that last year he spoke to the linguistics dept at Essex, for example.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The following long sentence: "I think it's safe to say that only a minority of linguists concede that hairy apes, parrots, poodles, chinchillas and others have an ability in language as a whole (as opposed to vocabulary or phonetic perception in isolation) that's anything like that (whether spoken or signed) of a human" equates the language abilities of certain apes with that of other species. Apes and birds have different abilities.Lestrade (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

There's no equation in the sentence you quote. The point of the sentence is to contrast human language to all other types of animal communication. The sentence does not compare types of ape communication with types of other animal communication. Pinkville (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I would think that people who are interested in linguistics would want to use correct language. To say that "the insistence on n't seems curiously Brit-o-centric; such utterances as 'I could care less' are fully idiomatic in the US, I believe" is a bit unconcerned, relaxed, and careless. "I could care less" means "I care very much." Its opposite, "I couldn't care less," means "I care very little." As far as contrasting human language with the communication of all other animals is concerned, such animals as Koko may lead us to believe that language ability lies on a graduated scale. The degrees and grades of abilities may continuously blend into each other and overlap. This is in contrast to Chomsky's belief that human language ability is totally unique and very different from the language abilities of other animals and is separated from theirs by a wide, unbridgeable gap.Lestrade (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Your theory or my theory about language are of no consequence. The only issue is how, in this article, to describe Chomsky's theory/ies. I've read several of Chomsky's most recent academic papers on the subject of language (notably, those co-written with Fitch and Hauser) and I think it would be fair to say that he would strongly disagree with the idea that there might be a "graduated