is Noam Chomsky a quack?
| demanding chapel kitty | 06/29/12 | | Gay Brunch | 08/29/12 | | iridescent roast beef | 02/22/14 | | Maize up-to-no-good depressive | 01/03/25 | | irradiated overrated lay | 06/29/12 | | at-the-ready new version dysfunction | 06/29/12 | | Excitant Weed Whacker | 08/29/12 | | deranged tanning salon hominid | 02/17/13 | | Translucent Ladyboy | 02/17/13 | | deranged tanning salon hominid | 02/17/13 | | Racy aqua heaven | 02/17/13 | | Turquoise marvelous shitlib cuckoldry | 02/17/13 | | out-of-control fishy state | 02/17/13 | | Balding yapping mood | 09/10/23 | | Carnelian Indian Lodge Persian | 02/17/13 | | Turquoise marvelous shitlib cuckoldry | 02/17/13 | | Curious charcoal plaza | 03/16/14 | | Painfully honest multi-colored stock car | 02/17/13 | | Pink cowardly circlehead | 02/17/13 | | iridescent roast beef | 02/17/13 | | zombie-like goal in life bawdyhouse | 06/23/23 | | Balding yapping mood | 09/10/23 | | Balding yapping mood | 01/03/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 29th, 2012 8:28 PM Author: demanding chapel kitty
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: Translucent Ladyboy
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: Turquoise marvelous shitlib cuckoldry
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) |
|
|