7 ms·

The extent to which Chomsky has remained relevant in both political and scientific arenas never ceases to amaze me.

by merinid 14y ago

francesca 14y ago
Agreed. Ironic that Chomsky still teaches at MIT
- gadders 14y ago
  Not sure about his linguistics, but his politics is adolescent.
  - 46Bit 14y ago
    Adolescent in what way?
  - jeremyswank 14y ago
    you're going to have to take that argument a bit farther for it to be convincing.
  - lukifer 14y ago
    At worst, he is guilty of unrealistic idealism, in the same fashion as the original democratic philosophers. But his knowledge and understanding of real power (perception management) is more sophisticated than any adolescent, and for that matter, most adults.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Are you suggesting that older people are not allowed to have ideals?
  - Yaa101 14y ago
    Now explain to the world why you think that his politics is adolescent without the world thinking that you are behaving adolescent.
  - jules 14y ago
    Norvig (Director of Research at Google, and author of the most popular AI book [1]) has written a criticism of Chomsky's linguistics in relation to AI: http://norvig.com/chomsky.html http://norvig.com/chomsky.html tl;dr: Norvig argues that language is best modeled statistically, Chomsky's model is deterministic. He also disagrees about what makes good science (usefulness for engineering is a valid criterium & gathering facts over developing theories). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mode...
    - cdavid 14y ago
      The scientific pedigree of Chomsky is beyond doubt. From a purely academic POV, with all respect due to Norvig, they are in a different league. (that does not mean that Norvig may be wrong and Chomsky right on that point you are quoting. It seems you're suggesting that Chomsky is not a great linguist because he disagress with Norvig - that would be a mistake).
    - beagle3 14y ago
      Norvig has written criticism about specific ideas that Chomsky uttered in some convention (which are also reflected in some of his written works on natural languages and their computational models). But Chomsky's contribution to linguistics in general and computational linguistics in particular goes well beyond anything like that, e.g. [1]. I'm not sure, but I suspect that linguistics and computational linguistics where unrelated fields before Chomsky tied them together. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
      - jules 14y ago
        You are minimizing the criticism, which isn't just about some utterance at a convention, it's about the core premise on which Chomsky's entire work rests, namely determinism. And more generally, that success of a model should be tested empirically rather than that it should "provide insight" in some abstract way. There is no doubt that Chomsky has done great work in the area of formal languages, it's just that the relationship with natural language is not as strong as initially hoped.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    My CSS must be broken. I would expect such a useless, non-content-contributing comment to be greyed out by now.
- merinid 14y ago
  He likes to be at the nerve of it all. It's an honest place for him to be and work, and in all fairness, they have really supported his enterprise there.
xk_id 14y ago
Uh, didn't he criticise scientific epistemologies in relation to so-called scientism? I read briefly about some of his remarks on the matter, and he just seemed like most of his fellow sociologists: ignorant of the relevance of science to sanity, probably caused by not having been trained in physico-mathematical rigour.
- mtraven 14y ago
  That might win the prize for most ignorant comment ever on HN. While you can level a number of criticisms at Chomsky, lack of mathematical rigor is not one of them. I would assume people here were If anything, Chomsky is guilty of over-reliance on mathematical formalism in his linguistics.
  - xk_id 14y ago
    well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with conjecturing, when one presents it as such. Thanks for making a case against what I said, I may give Chomsky a second chance. Edit: by the way, I'm a bit suspicious of your phrasing in "mathematical formalism in his linguistics". Mathematical verbalism does not qualify as sane. I know a case of a person who does speak as a mathematician (very convincing!), even uses mathematics in his expositions, yet he is completely insane and what he says makes no sense whatsoever. I can share a recording of one of his lectures if you wish, but unfortunately he speaks in Romanian.
    - CR45H 14y ago
      Your description of this "mathematician" intrigues me. And, since I happen to speak Romanian, I would love to have a link to one of his lectures. Thanks! However, I agree with "mtraven" that you should not be leveling this kind of accusation until you have read Chomsky's work.
      - xk_id 14y ago
        Duly noted! The lecture is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0.
Bud 14y ago
That's probably because you don't really know who Chomsky is or what the breadth of his work has been. Even if you choose to discard all his work in politics, he's a towering figure in linguistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
- merinid 14y ago
  I meant this in a positive way, ie, that the breadth is so enormous and he is so prolific that I am constantly impressed.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    That's how I took it when I upvoted you.
Yaa101 14y ago
What never cease to amaze me and fascinates me is how people can rationalize away simple concept like: When the public pays for knowledge to be created, it should be that the public owns the knowledge it paid for, of all people Americans should live this truth. But no, the majority really thinks that a small elite has the right to usurp this knowledge not paid by them and let the public that paid for it, pay more and more. Who are guilty here? The oportunists that took the chance to usurp the knowledge, or the public that let it steal from under their nose and let the oportunists be oportunistic? Who here dares to answer my amazement? I dare you to enter this debate!!
- hackerblues 14y ago
  The public's taxes also fund the military. Extending your principle to this case implies that the public owns the countries nuclear arsenal. Can you advise what this ownership should practically entail? Should I get access to the weapons? Should I be able to use them? Or am I limited to indirectly benefitting from their existence?
  - BrokenPipe 14y ago
    You are not the first to make the mistake of comparing I.P. with physical property. They are not the same physically, in theory, in practice or in law.
    - CR45H 14y ago
      The biggest problem with I.P. is that those of us who understand that it is in no way "property" continue to allow ourselves to be maneuvered into using that term. As long as we continue to use the term "intellectual property" then the duplication of it will be called "theft" or "piracy". We must stop using these terms with are inherently wrong. The truth is that copying is not only the way that human society advances (you cannot have innovation without copying) but it is how humanity itself evolves. It is inscribed in our DNA and we would not exist without it.
      - 14y ago

The extent to which Chomsky has remained relevant in both political and scientific arenas never ceases to amaze me.

by merinid 14y ago

The extent to which Chomsky has remained relevant in both political and scientific arenas never ceases to amaze me.

francesca 14y ago

Agreed. Ironic that Chomsky still teaches at MIT

gadders 14y ago
Not sure about his linguistics, but his politics is adolescent.
- 46Bit 14y ago
  Adolescent in what way?
- jeremyswank 14y ago
  you're going to have to take that argument a bit farther for it to be convincing.
- lukifer 14y ago
  At worst, he is guilty of unrealistic idealism, in the same fashion as the original democratic philosophers. But his knowledge and understanding of real power (perception management) is more sophisticated than any adolescent, and for that matter, most adults.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Are you suggesting that older people are not allowed to have ideals?
- Yaa101 14y ago
  Now explain to the world why you think that his politics is adolescent without the world thinking that you are behaving adolescent.
- jules 14y ago
  Norvig (Director of Research at Google, and author of the most popular AI book [1]) has written a criticism of Chomsky's linguistics in relation to AI: http://norvig.com/chomsky.html http://norvig.com/chomsky.html tl;dr: Norvig argues that language is best modeled statistically, Chomsky's model is deterministic. He also disagrees about what makes good science (usefulness for engineering is a valid criterium & gathering facts over developing theories). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mode...
  - cdavid 14y ago
    The scientific pedigree of Chomsky is beyond doubt. From a purely academic POV, with all respect due to Norvig, they are in a different league. (that does not mean that Norvig may be wrong and Chomsky right on that point you are quoting. It seems you're suggesting that Chomsky is not a great linguist because he disagress with Norvig - that would be a mistake).
  - beagle3 14y ago
    Norvig has written criticism about specific ideas that Chomsky uttered in some convention (which are also reflected in some of his written works on natural languages and their computational models). But Chomsky's contribution to linguistics in general and computational linguistics in particular goes well beyond anything like that, e.g. [1]. I'm not sure, but I suspect that linguistics and computational linguistics where unrelated fields before Chomsky tied them together. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
    - jules 14y ago
      You are minimizing the criticism, which isn't just about some utterance at a convention, it's about the core premise on which Chomsky's entire work rests, namely determinism. And more generally, that success of a model should be tested empirically rather than that it should "provide insight" in some abstract way. There is no doubt that Chomsky has done great work in the area of formal languages, it's just that the relationship with natural language is not as strong as initially hoped.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  My CSS must be broken. I would expect such a useless, non-content-contributing comment to be greyed out by now.
merinid 14y ago
He likes to be at the nerve of it all. It's an honest place for him to be and work, and in all fairness, they have really supported his enterprise there.

xk_id 14y ago

Uh, didn't he criticise scientific epistemologies in relation to so-called scientism? I read briefly about some of his remarks on the matter, and he just seemed like most of his fellow sociologists: ignorant of the relevance of science to sanity, probably caused by not having been trained in physico-mathematical rigour.

mtraven 14y ago
That might win the prize for most ignorant comment ever on HN. While you can level a number of criticisms at Chomsky, lack of mathematical rigor is not one of them. I would assume people here were If anything, Chomsky is guilty of over-reliance on mathematical formalism in his linguistics.
- xk_id 14y ago
  well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with conjecturing, when one presents it as such. Thanks for making a case against what I said, I may give Chomsky a second chance. Edit: by the way, I'm a bit suspicious of your phrasing in "mathematical formalism in his linguistics". Mathematical verbalism does not qualify as sane. I know a case of a person who does speak as a mathematician (very convincing!), even uses mathematics in his expositions, yet he is completely insane and what he says makes no sense whatsoever. I can share a recording of one of his lectures if you wish, but unfortunately he speaks in Romanian.
  - CR45H 14y ago
    Your description of this "mathematician" intrigues me. And, since I happen to speak Romanian, I would love to have a link to one of his lectures. Thanks! However, I agree with "mtraven" that you should not be leveling this kind of accusation until you have read Chomsky's work.
    - xk_id 14y ago
      Duly noted! The lecture is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0.

Bud 14y ago

That's probably because you don't really know who Chomsky is or what the breadth of his work has been. Even if you choose to discard all his work in politics, he's a towering figure in linguistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

merinid 14y ago
I meant this in a positive way, ie, that the breadth is so enormous and he is so prolific that I am constantly impressed.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  That's how I took it when I upvoted you.

Yaa101 14y ago

What never cease to amaze me and fascinates me is how people can rationalize away simple concept like: When the public pays for knowledge to be created, it should be that the public owns the knowledge it paid for, of all people Americans should live this truth. But no, the majority really thinks that a small elite has the right to usurp this knowledge not paid by them and let the public that paid for it, pay more and more. Who are guilty here? The oportunists that took the chance to usurp the knowledge, or the public that let it steal from under their nose and let the oportunists be oportunistic? Who here dares to answer my amazement? I dare you to enter this debate!!

hackerblues 14y ago
The public's taxes also fund the military. Extending your principle to this case implies that the public owns the countries nuclear arsenal. Can you advise what this ownership should practically entail? Should I get access to the weapons? Should I be able to use them? Or am I limited to indirectly benefitting from their existence?
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  You are not the first to make the mistake of comparing I.P. with physical property. They are not the same physically, in theory, in practice or in law.
  - CR45H 14y ago
    The biggest problem with I.P. is that those of us who understand that it is in no way "property" continue to allow ourselves to be maneuvered into using that term. As long as we continue to use the term "intellectual property" then the duplication of it will be called "theft" or "piracy". We must stop using these terms with are inherently wrong. The truth is that copying is not only the way that human society advances (you cannot have innovation without copying) but it is how humanity itself evolves. It is inscribed in our DNA and we would not exist without it.
    - 14y ago