Chomsky is full of crap

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You appear ****ing retarded.
Chomsky's speciality is a mathematical analysis of syntax and grammar, and psychological aspects of grammar use.
He's contributed greatly to psychology and computer programming.

Hello, I've had that discussion with LC already.

[Last Conformist]

Yes, and your argument is that because Chomsky is an linguist he necessarily understands history and culture. The argument fails because a grounding in general linguistics doesn't require any particular insights in those subjects, and neither does Chomsky's specialization.

[Fake Boris]

Culture is a sum of human practices.

A sociologist takes a certain approach towards it, a philosopher another one, and so do art critics, historians, linguists, etc. It's completely absurd to claim that a discipline has some sort of innate priority over the definition of an all-encompassing concept such as culture.

Here's Siro's original claim, BTW:

"he's a freaking linguist. he has no idea about culture or history and that crap."

If you don't see the importance of linguistics in the understanding of culture by analysis of language and its related epiphenomenons, I'm not about to educate you. That's for "culture", at least.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Culture is a sum of human practices.

A sociologist takes a certain approach towards it, a philosopher another one, and so do art critics, historians, linguists, etc. It's completely absurd to claim that a discipline has some sort of innate priority over the definition of an all-encompassing concept such as culture.

Red herring. Nobody's claimed that.

Here's Siro's original claim, BTW:

"he's a freaking linguist. he has no idea about culture or history and that crap."

If you don't see the importance of linguistics in the understanding of culture by analysis of language and its related epiphenomenons, I'm not about to educate you. That's for "culture", at least.

You're supposed to be arguing that knowing linguistics implies understanding culture, not that understanding culture necessiates understanding linguistics.

[Fake Boris]

Errr... no.

"he's a freaking linguist. [Therefore] he has no idea about culture or history and that crap."

I'm arguing that there is absolutely no connection between being a linguist and not understanding culture — quite the contrary.

[Sirotnikov]

"he's a freaking linguist. he has no idea about culture or history and that crap."

If you don't see the importance of linguistics in the understanding of culture by analysis of language and its related epiphenomenons, I'm not about to educate you. That's for "culture", at least.

Your claim doesn't hold water, and you're trying to back out.

Just because language is part of one's culture, does not mean that a linguist is somehow better equipped to analyze political behaviour than a person who actually deals with political science / history / sociology.

Nor does Chomsky in particular has any unqiue training in the history of arabic, islamic scripture, or to the contrary - the history of english / american political thought.

If you truly think that just because linguists take on a course on 'culture' he's really good at analyzing that, then why not go to Art students?

Heck, if someone studied art, he probably studied about cultures, since culture is a main feature in art. By your logic, a person who took a course about Islamic art, is well equipped to be good political advisor and an analyst

[Sirotnikov]

I'm arguing that there is absolutely no connection between being a linguist and not understanding culture � quite the contrary.

lets divide it in two parts:

first, as I explain in my previous post - a linguist is certainly not better equipped to deal with analyzing politics or history, what ever "culture 101" courses he may have taken.

Language is part of culture. Art is also part of culture. An artist is not a good political analyst. Neither is a linguist.


Which brings me back to my argument, which you are still avoiding:

Since Chomsky's profession and education have nothing to do with political science, history, or culture - his opinions are not better or have more credence than that of any other joe schmoe.

Perhaps as a linguist he's more eloquent. Perhaps he even has a good grasp of analytical abilities. But the fact of higher education alone, does not make his political views and analysis any better than that of my own.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Errr... no.

"he's a freaking linguist. [Therefore] he has no idea about culture or history and that crap."

I'm arguing that there is absolutely no connection between being a linguist and not understanding culture — quite the contrary.

Nice backtracking. Will you go back and edit your earlier posts?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

"he's a freaking linguist. he has no idea about culture or history and that crap."

If you don't see the importance of linguistics in the understanding of culture by analysis of language and its related epiphenomenons, I'm not about to educate you. That's for "culture", at least.

Your claim doesn't hold water, and you're trying to back out.

Just because language is part of one's culture, does not mean that a linguist is somehow better equipped to analyze political behaviour than a person who actually deals with political science / history / sociology.

Nor does Chomsky in particular has any unqiue training in the history of arabic, islamic scripture, or to the contrary - the history of english / american political thought.

If you truly think that just because linguists take on a course on 'culture' he's really good at analyzing that, then why not go to Art students?

Heck, if someone studied art, he probably studied about cultures, since culture is a main feature in art. By your logic, a person who took a course about Islamic art, is well equipped to be good political advisor and an analyst

This is the same as saying that Shaq can't play center because you are a Chicago Bulls fan or something.

[Pekka]

No, it isn't the same exactly, but claiming so is closer to 'prove that he isn't intelligent', which is the same as 'prove that God does not exist'.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This is the same as saying that Shaq can't play center because you are a Chicago Bulls fan or something.

I'm sorry you can't follow logic

do you care to explain my logical error?

[Fake Boris]

Siro and LC are accusing me of bactracking - while they're they one who appeared to say that linguistics is not related to the understanding of culture.

[MosesPresley]

@ molly

[Az]

Siro and LC are accusing me of bactracking - while they're they one who appeared to say that linguistics is not related to the understanding of culture.

to be quite honest, I thought that Chomsky's area of expertise is quite well known.

also, I am not so sure to which part of Lingusitics you refer.....

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


I'm sorry you can't follow logic

do you care to explain my logical error?

No logical error, but your idea that education or anything else gives you better political views is silly.