Chomsky's etc

[Albert Rolls]

Hate to get involved in this line of discussion (and possible piss people off) but the idea that "[Chomsky] is outrageously underqualified in the field of Political Philosophy to make outlandish claims in the public sphere against our government and President" seems to suggest that no one who is not qualified in political philosophy is allowed to have an opinion about foreign policy, the U.S.'s or anyone else's.  Or is it we are not allowed to publicly voice our opposition to what our government does, or what any other government does for that matter, without becoming qualified in Political Philosophy (after getting our masters or doctorate?). Why don't we just put the Oligarchy in place and stop spending so much money on having elections and counting votes; the voters, after all, have very little understanding of political philosophy, which I suppose precludes them from understanding domestic policy as well. Or are we allowed to make claims that aren't "outlandish" despite not being qualified to tell the difference between the outlandish and the acceptable? 

Argue against Chomsky's position if you disagree with it. 

Attacking the figure serves little purpose.

Albert  


-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael F <mff8785 at gmail.com>
>Sent: May 19, 2011 9:30 PM
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden
>
>Richard,
>
>"Ignorance of Professor Chomsky's career doesn't indicate the absence
>of an important career."
>
>Because I think he is outrageously underqualified in the field of
>Political Philosophy to make outlandish claims in the public sphere
>against our government and President, you assume that I'm discounting
>his institutionally recognized academic achievement in the fields of
>Modern Science?  I haven't made one comment disparaging Chomsky's
>academic achievement in the field of Linguistics.  Actually, I grew up
>with an Ivy League Linguistics prof in my family that I was really
>close to, and as a youngster (my teen age years) I vividly remember
>having discussions regarding Manufactured Consent and Linguistics in
>the living room and at the kitchen table.  During my undergrad years
>at a state college, I vigorously read West, and my Ivy League family
>members upbraided me and told me that in the inner circles he was
>considered an academic "Pima Donna".
>
>Actually, I'm sure MIT and Princeton value Chomsky and West for the
>very reason that they spout-off in a wide variety of directions; the
>more the two spew politically naive rhetoric that appeals to high
>school Seniors, the more media coverage the schools get, resulting in
>more applications arriving in the mail.
>
>"But then scientists and philosphers have no business doing economics,
>politics or linguistics."
>
>To an extent I agree.  We'd be in complete agreement if you said,
>"Philosophers have no business in linguistics."  One must be of a
>sound mind to understand the ramifications of systemic implementation
>of economics systems or the overhauling of existent economic systems,
>as many in the Bush and Obama administrations were and are not.
>
>Mike
>
>On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Richard Fiero <rfiero at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael F wrote:
>>>
>>> . . . Chomsky and West are of similar sophistic natures.  They are
>>> celebrities, not
>>> philosophers.  Amazing how they turn their back on Obama.  They are
>>> typical of the "revolutionaries" that particular(not all) institutions
>>> and departments are creating.  I actually prefer Ward Churchill to the
>>> turn-coats!  Ward could put on a show and his histrionics are much
>>> more entertaining and humorous than West's preaching/ hip-hop act and
>>> Noam's solemn delivery.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Ignorance of Professor Chomsky's career doesn't indicate the absence of an
>> important career. Noam was quite a cyborg in his day as Maxwell's Demon got
>> loose and became well-funded. But then scientists and philosphers have no
>> business doing economics, politics or linguistics.
>>
>> Fragments from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
>>
>> the Chomsky hierarchy has also become important in computer science
>> (especially in compiler construction and automata theory).
>>
>> The Chomsky hierarchy is often taught in fundamental computer science
>> courses as it confers insight into the various types of formal languages.
>> This hierarchy can also be discussed in mathematical terms[106] and has
>> generated interest among mathematicians, particularly combinatorialists.
>> Some arguments in evolutionary psychology are derived from his research
>> results.
>>
>> Donald Knuth admits to reading Syntactic Structures during his honeymoon and
>> being greatly influenced by it. "…I must admit to taking a copy of Noam
>> Chomsky's Syntactic Structures along with me on my honeymoon in 1961 … Here
>> was a marvelous thing: a mathematical theory of language in which I could
>> use a computer programmer's intuition!
>>
>> the 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science
>>
>> In Martin, Davis,. "Computability, complexity, and languages: Fundamentals
>> of theoretical computer science."
>>
>>