3 ms·

"What did Chomsky mean", the eternal question. He, among with Alan Kay, are among the most (deliberately I suspect) cryptic obfuscatory bullshitters alive. They

"What did Chomsky mean", the eternal question. He, among with Alan Kay, are among the most (deliberately I suspect) cryptic obfuscatory bullshitters alive. They spout twisted, vague statements that can interpreted in dozens of conflicting ways, and through cult of personality people ascribe great wisdom and genius to them, thinking their grand thoughts must be just beyond the grasp of mere mortals like them. True genius can communicate things clearly I think. Probably not a popular opinion, and I'm a little cranky so grain of salt. But Chomsky and his ilk seem like some of the great intellectual hustlers of our time.

denton-scratch 4y ago
I think it's pretty unreasonable to call him a "hustler". He repudiated Transformational Grammar, which at the time was his towering intellectual achievement. That's like Wittgenstein repudiating the Tractatus; it's a mark of striking (and uncommon) intellectual honesty.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > I think it's pretty unreasonable to call him a "hustler" [...] a mark of striking (and uncommon) intellectual honesty. No, given his towering intellectual dishonesty in political writings, he is a hustler. If his actual scientific work isn't a hustle, too bad for him: Having revealed his character in one arena, he's shot his reputation and disqualified himself from the benefit of the doubt in all arenas.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > his towering intellectual dishonesty in political writings Citation needed. You can disagree with his political opinions; he takes positions that are controversial. That's not the same as intellectual dishonesty or hustling.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      > Citation needed. https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY
bmitc 4y ago
Both Chomsky and Kay are systems thinkers and scientists. Systems are incredibly difficult to discuss, model, etc. with the precision of say quantum mechanics or relativity or any other physical theory. Many systems thinkers and indeed even entire fields are often rejected, dismissed, or insulted by those used to the precision of say physics. Examples of such fields are biology, sociology, psychology, etc., i.e., as you move up the systems ladder. Fields like physics are easy because they readily allow assumptions to greatly simplify and test theories. We are simply in the infancy of understanding complex systems and being able to discuss and describe systems, so people can often be revolted by the apparent, but not actual, looseness of arguments and theories when it comes to systems. This is not a fault in the persons who study systems. It is not a fault at all. It is simply the facts of nature in that we are just beginning to be able to tackle these subjects. For Chomsky, I don't think I've ever witnessed someone speak who exudes more intellectual power than him. He seems to possess a near photographic memory, recalling specific phrases from some newspaper or journal article from decades ago. He seems to be quite honest about his own work and addressing things with humility.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > For Chomsky, I don't think I've ever witnessed someone speak who exudes more intellectual power than him. Begs the question of whether he actually has that intellectual power, or you have only got this impression thanks to his successful bloviation. > He seems to possess a near photographic memory, recalling specific phrases from some newspaper or journal article from decades ago. Nope. Or, if he has, he uses it very selectively. Read some of the counters to his political writings, and you'll get lots of examples of him twisting the words of his opponents, and conveniently forgetting his own earlier ones. > He seems to be quite honest about his own work and addressing things with humility. No. Given his intellectual dishonesty in his political writings, I see no reason to trust his character elsewhere either.

denton-scratch 4y ago

I think it's pretty unreasonable to call him a "hustler". He repudiated Transformational Grammar, which at the time was his towering intellectual achievement. That's like Wittgenstein repudiating the Tractatus; it's a mark of striking (and uncommon) intellectual honesty.

CRConrad 4y ago
> I think it's pretty unreasonable to call him a "hustler" [...] a mark of striking (and uncommon) intellectual honesty. No, given his towering intellectual dishonesty in political writings, he is a hustler. If his actual scientific work isn't a hustle, too bad for him: Having revealed his character in one arena, he's shot his reputation and disqualified himself from the benefit of the doubt in all arenas.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > his towering intellectual dishonesty in political writings Citation needed. You can disagree with his political opinions; he takes positions that are controversial. That's not the same as intellectual dishonesty or hustling.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > Citation needed. https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY

bmitc 4y ago

Both Chomsky and Kay are systems thinkers and scientists. Systems are incredibly difficult to discuss, model, etc. with the precision of say quantum mechanics or relativity or any other physical theory. Many systems thinkers and indeed even entire fields are often rejected, dismissed, or insulted by those used to the precision of say physics. Examples of such fields are biology, sociology, psychology, etc., i.e., as you move up the systems ladder. Fields like physics are easy because they readily allow assumptions to greatly simplify and test theories. We are simply in the infancy of understanding complex systems and being able to discuss and describe systems, so people can often be revolted by the apparent, but not actual, looseness of arguments and theories when it comes to systems. This is not a fault in the persons who study systems. It is not a fault at all. It is simply the facts of nature in that we are just beginning to be able to tackle these subjects. For Chomsky, I don't think I've ever witnessed someone speak who exudes more intellectual power than him. He seems to possess a near photographic memory, recalling specific phrases from some newspaper or journal article from decades ago. He seems to be quite honest about his own work and addressing things with humility.

CRConrad 4y ago
> For Chomsky, I don't think I've ever witnessed someone speak who exudes more intellectual power than him. Begs the question of whether he actually has that intellectual power, or you have only got this impression thanks to his successful bloviation. > He seems to possess a near photographic memory, recalling specific phrases from some newspaper or journal article from decades ago. Nope. Or, if he has, he uses it very selectively. Read some of the counters to his political writings, and you'll get lots of examples of him twisting the words of his opponents, and conveniently forgetting his own earlier ones. > He seems to be quite honest about his own work and addressing things with humility. No. Given his intellectual dishonesty in his political writings, I see no reason to trust his character elsewhere either.