Quote
To claim that Chomsky's knowledge is "superficial" and not in line with the hard/quantitative sciences would suggest to me that you are perhaps not well aware of his revolutionary contributions to the field of linguistics, which is effectively a philosophical and mathematical approach to understanding language (and thus the mind's structure) itself.
So what mathematical proofs or quantitative papers has Chomsky directly created in linguistics? Not contributed towards- what has he actually done in the field that's quantitative that didn't require collaboration with an academic/researcher from a quantitative background?
Quote
His academic work is foundational to an entire branch of anthropology, applied computer science and AI and is woven throughout our modern society in very technical ways that many specialized mathematicians or physicists would only dream of.
I will reiterate, Chomsky is not quantitative. He's an expert in one specific field (linguistics). Even if he contributed to these fields or laid the foundation, he is not a Computer Scientist (see: quantitative), or an AI PhD researcher (normally some form mathematician). He is not quantitative*. He. is. not. quantitative.
I am not saying he has contributed nothing to academia ever. I'm saying he overreaches and opines on things outside his realm of expertise and because he is articulate, people take his opinions as gospel.
Quote
You may not like his political philosophies, but he's proven to be worth paying attention to just as you might listen to Einstein's opinions about politics.
Except it's not proven. Also I think many of Einsteins views on politics were naive. Again, an example of a genius in one field overreaching.
Politics and economics are broad fields, fields which are easily accessible to many people. Chomsky is articulate which means he is more likely to be taken at face value by a portion of the population. This is not a phenomenon specific to Chomsky. You will find this across all academia, and all walks of life. Chomsky is a major offender, as are a raft of academics on the Left, including Marx.
Quote
As others have said, his political influence in American these days is primarily among left-wing academics, socialist/anarchist thinkers.
I've outlined why I believe this to be an issue above. It's not something specific to Chomsky. Marx was articulate- he was probably the most influential figure in the field of economics since Adam Smith. It doesn't mean his views weren't poorly informed.
*Why does this matter, and why do I keep harping back to it? Simple. In order to understand basic economics, and by proxy many aspects of politics you need to have, at a minimum, a basic level of numeracy and quantitative ability. Chomsky routinely comments and opines on these things and is taken as a credible voice in this area. I question his credentials and competency in this area.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2017 09:19AM by istirith.