is Noam Chomsky a quack?
| cerebral purple corner jewess | 06/29/12 | | Soul-stirring Hominid Roast Beef | 08/29/12 | | Electric kitty | 02/22/14 | | tats | 01/03/25 | | iridescent supple stage legend | 06/29/12 | | maniacal cocky office tattoo | 06/29/12 | | Beady-eyed degenerate | 08/29/12 | | glittery stock car | 02/17/13 | | big-titted pisswyrm liquid oxygen | 02/17/13 | | glittery stock car | 02/17/13 | | at-the-ready forum | 02/17/13 | | Indecent trump supporter skinny woman | 02/17/13 | | rambunctious home dysfunction | 02/17/13 | | impressive milk kitchen | 09/10/23 | | lavender friendly grandma senate | 02/17/13 | | Indecent trump supporter skinny woman | 02/17/13 | | orchid razzle sanctuary party of the first part | 03/16/14 | | Cracking crackhouse | 02/17/13 | | Fragrant chest-beating native puppy | 02/17/13 | | Electric kitty | 02/17/13 | | haunting abode blood rage | 06/23/23 | | impressive milk kitchen | 09/10/23 | | https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK | 01/03/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 29th, 2012 8:28 PM Author: cerebral purple corner jewess
As it turned out, not a single one of Chomsky's earth-shattering discoveries has proved remotely on a par with "the discovery of waves, particles, genes and so on" in the physical sciences. Even the basic notion of "deep structure" was discarded long ago and is nowadays not mentioned. The Empty Category Principle (ECP), X-bar theory, binding theory and so on and so forth - virtually the entire corpus of Chomskyan technical concepts and terms - got thrown overboard years ago. "Minimalism" meant exploring Chomsky's personal "intuition" that language is "perfect", which in turn meant calling into question just about everything:
"My own view is that almost everything is subject to question, especially if you look at it from a minimalist perspective; about everything you look at, the question is: why is it there? So, if you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have said government is a unifying concept, X-bar theory is a unifying concept, the head parameter is an obvious parameter, ECP, etc, but now none of these looks obvious. X-bar theory, I think, is probably wrong, government maybe does not exist."[40]
In an attempt to salvage his credibility, Chomsky argues that failure and self-repudiation on this scale is normal in science. When Einstein intervened, Newton's more limited conceptions were overthrown. But the difference - as Chomsky well knows - is that physics underwent a genuine scientific revolution, whereas linguistics did not. There is no evidence that Galileo kept changing his mind on fundamentals during his own lifetime, as Chomsky has done. The fact that no Chomskyan claim seems to survive more than a few years suggests that something is wrong.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982910&forum_id=2#20986552) |
Date: February 17th, 2013 12:52 AM Author: big-titted pisswyrm liquid oxygen
He's a legit linguist albeit probably wrong
his stuff on economics is pure pop-schlock
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982910&forum_id=2#22653688) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2013 1:44 AM Author: Indecent trump supporter skinny woman
what is his legacy? all his work in his field is in doubt (see OP/link)?
what is he going to hang his hat on? his Stalinist apologetics?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982910&forum_id=2#22653935) |
|
|