Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

This article reads like a press release

How about some critism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.189.72 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Agreed, the quote: "a hero of Homeric proportions, belonging solidly in the pantheon of our country's finest minds, with all the powers and qualities thereof. First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary. He is, too, a born leader, able to marshal support, fierce and uncompromising support, for positions he develops or adopts. Often, it seems, he shapes linguistics by sheer force of will." is simply embarassing to read, lacks objectivity and has absolutely no place in the article. The fact that it is a citation of someone else's opinion does not change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.195.128.112 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a whole page (linked in this article) dedicated to non-objective criticism of Chomsky? CABlankenship (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There's Criticism of Noam Chomsky, which is an intermittently interesting mess. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Universal grammar

The article claims that "Children are hypothesized to have an innate knowledge of the basic grammatical structure common to all human languages …This innate knowledge is often referred to as universal grammar." Chomsky's innate universal grammar has never been seen or measured. It may be a mere fiction. Is this the profound contribution that resulted in the staggering judgment that "his contributions to science are difficult to overestimate. He not only revolutionized linguistics, but he also profoundly affected biology, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and philosophy. Few figures loom as large over 20th century science as Chomsky … one of the greatest 20th century biologists, actually called him one of the half-dozen greatest intellects of the century"?Lestrade (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Tedious nonsense. You shouldn't plague others with your ignorance of science. I could give a whit about his silly opinions on politics. You want to smear hard science simply because you don't like the guy. That's your right, of course, but please don't pretend to understand the first thing about biology, especially not with your creationist prattle. We have never "seen or measured" the evolution of man. Should we discard that also? You simply don't understand science. Only cranks still dispute the notion that there is an innate component to language with all of the massive genetic evidence we have that this is true. Do a google for the foxp2 gene, for instance.CABlankenship (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tedium is subjective. What is tedious for one person is interesting and stimulating for another person. When you say "I could give a whit," you should have said "I couldn't give a whit." By asking a simple question, I am smearing hard science? Is innate universal grammar a concept of "hard" science? What is "creationist" about my prattle? "Cranks" once disputed Ptolemy's geocentric universe. Calling people "cranks" is not a logical way to discuss these topics. If innate universal grammar is truly supported by "massive genetic evidence," then my question has been answered and Chomsky may be right. If not, then it is permissable to question Chomsky's hypothesis, at the risk, of course, of being called a "crank."Lestrade (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

~UG was not a hypothesis, it was a theory. It's now an established fact within biology. The creationist aspect of your prattle was your denial of scientific facts that are not "seen or measured". Typically, I only hear such rubbish from the young-earth creationists. Regardless, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about science. CABlankenship (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, "Children are hypothesized to have an innate knowledge of the basic grammatical structure common to all human languages." Should we change that? It is my understanding, however, that innate universal grammar is not an established fact. I believe that a person can be a non–creationist and yet can question concepts that are based on unseen and unmeasured mental constructions. Such questioning does not show a fundamental lack of understanding about science. For example, I have a perfect right to question the existence of gravitational waves or the luminiferous ether because they have never been seen or measured.Lestrade (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

The pages on UG in WIKI are terrible and woefully out of date. Even before recent evidence, no serious biologist questioned that there is an innate component to language. If you understand evolution, then you understand that some aspect of language is innate, or it's simply a miracle. There is no possible way to explain language if we are to believe that it must be learned in total. There is no possible way to explain the way a child acquires language without an innate component. This should just be obvious, but some people (untrained in biology) just don't seem to get it. Chomsky has made many enemies in his time, and this leads to layman attempts to discredit his scientific work. In the end, we'll probably just need a new term, since UG has been so universally attacked by people who oppose his politics. It's sad, really. Chomsky's work on this matter has been profoundly important to biology.

Just consider the obvious: everyone knows that children have a remarkable ability to quickly learn language, even without being taught to do so. All they need to do is hear the language being spoken, and within no time at all they have mastered it. This does not hold true with other subjects--young children do not learn mathematics or other activities with the same astonishing speed. So it's either a pre-programmed and hardwired response (somewhat like puberty, menopause, &c,), or it's a full-blown miracle. CABlankenship (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to try to advance science through the use of reason and rational argumentation. Your disjunctive (either/or) statement that language learning is either innate or miraculous assumes that the logical law of excluded middle applies to the world of experience. This may not be the case. There may be other premises that have not yet been experienced or theorized.Lestrade (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

It is not a good idea to try to advance science through the use of reason and rational argumentation. Having read this perplexing assertion, I then return to the real world. Pinkville (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost bust up laughing reading that. Look, in science we cannot stop to theorize untestable epistemological exceptions. For instance, the statement: "God did it" is of no use to science, even if it's technically possible, and even if it has explanatory power. There may be some mysterious law of language (quantum mechanics?) of which we are unaware, but we have no need of such a hypothesis when we already have an explanation that is falsifiable and testable. All evidence to this point supports the notion that humans have an innate language faculty. You seem to insist that we remain open to unnamed and fantastical solutions to this problem, yet you present no alternatives--nor has anyone else. In the meantime, I challenge you to find one respectable biologist who disputes that the ability to learn a language is innate. On my side, just of the higher end scientists, I can list Richard Dawkins, J.Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, Hauser, Orr, J.Diamond, G.C. Williams, E.O. Wilson. I know of no scientists who agree with you that this theory is inadequate and we need to look for mysterious skyhooks. There is no reason at all to accept your position. Of course language evolved. Of course it is innate. You don't understand the argument. CABlankenship (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

After experiencing Koko's language abilities, we may decide that Chomsky's innate universal grammar is not only a property of human brains. I notice that my Poodle reacts in different ways when she hears certain words. This also applies to Washoe, Nim Chimpsky, and Chantek. (According to the Wikipedia article on Nim Chimpsky, Noam Chomsky claimed that only humans are "hard–wired" for language.) Universal grammar's innateness may be only potential, rather than actual. It may become active in particular circumstances and otherwise remain dormant. Innateness is an interesting condition. Does it exist before birth or only from birth? How could we tell? Is the ability to generate children innate? Is the ability to understand causes of perceived effects innate? Is the ability to fight infection by producing pus innate (innate universal suppuration)? Is the ability to cry innate (innate universal lachrymosity)? Is the ability to add numbers innate? Is the ability to fight enemies innate? What characteristics are innate only for humans and not for other animals? Chomsky's innate universal grammar is certainly a topic that is worth thinking about. The Wikipedia article can help puzzled readers to better understand this complicated topic and appreciate Chomsky's contribution that "revolutionized linguistics, but…also profoundly affected biology, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and philosophy" surely making him "one of the half-dozen greatest intellects of the century" if not of all time.Lestrade (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

1. After experiencing Koko's language abilities, we may decide that Chomsky's innate universal grammar is not only a property of human brains. And then again, we may not. I think it's safe to say that only a minority of linguists concede that hairy apes, parrots, poodles, chinchillas and others have an ability in language as a whole (as opposed to vocabulary or phonetic perception in isolation) that's anything like that (whether spoken or signed) of a human. And by "linguists" here I'm not referring to the more or less Chomskyan. One of the most readable of genuine linguists is Geoff Pullum, a ruthless critic of various aspects of Chomsky's work and of the notion of stimulus poverty in particular, and generally a sceptic of nativism. Here's Pullum on what he calls the stupid fake pet communication tricks of non-humans in general and the celebrated N'kisi in particular.
2. [UG is] now an established fact within biology. You surprise me, given the degree of well-informed opposition within cognitive science to UG. (Consider the writings of Michael Tomasello, for example.) Where are the authoritative statements that UG is an established fact within biology?
3. When you say "I could give a whit," you should have said "I couldn't give a whit." No, he/she perhaps should have said "I could(n't) give a shit": "shit" is here more idiomatic than "whit"; still, people are free to improvise, or of course to euphemize. Meanwhile, the insistence on "n't" seems curiously Brit-o-centric; such utterances as "I could care less" are fully idiomatic in the US, I believe.
   Hoary (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on this matter is highly strange. You are of course correct that few linguists (and few biologists) would argue that non-human communication is "anything like" human language. But I fail to see how this fact serves to work against the idea that language evolved in humans, or how it explains its existence. Are you saying that language did not evolve? Are you saying that language is not all that peculiar and is simply a byproduct of the big human brain? Do you contend infant language-learning is just a coincidence, or a wild mystery that can't possibly be explained in darwinian terms? Chomsky has been one of the steady opponents of the idea that non-humans have language, so your use of this as an argument against UG is odd. If the ability of infants to spontaneously learn language independent of teaching is not evolved, perhaps you have some radical new theory that explains how complex features can be created apart from natural selection? If not, perhaps you can direct me toward these luminaries. You pointed me toward Tomasello, who is clearly exaggerating his objection to UG. What he proposes is merely that other evolved features create an effect rather like Gould's "spandrel", where other adaptations came to be used for language, but this is a point Chomsky readily accepts as possible. Tomasello's real disagreement is more with Pinker than with Chomsky, but that doesn't sell as many books. Tomasello's disagreement is hype and semantics, things which are typical of such efforts. CABlankenship (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are of course correct that few linguists (and few biologists) would argue that non-human communication is "anything like" human language. Thank you. ¶ But I fail to see how this fact serves to work against the idea that language evolved in humans, or how it explains its existence. Me too. ¶ Are you saying that language did not evolve? No. ¶ Are you saying that language is not all that peculiar and is simply a byproduct of the big human brain? No. ¶ Do you contend infant language-learning is just a coincidence, or a wild mystery that can't possibly be explained in darwinian terms? No. Although I wonder why you are interested in what I think. ¶ Chomsky has been one of the steady opponents of the idea that non-humans have language, so your use of this as an argument against UG is odd. What I find much odder is your inference that I was arguing against UG or that I was using the non-acquisition of language by non-humans as a plank to anything else. But perhaps you are addressing somebody other than myself. ¶ If the ability of infants to spontaneously learn language independent of teaching is not evolved, perhaps you have some radical new theory that explains how complex features can be created apart from natural selection? I'm sure that all readers of this page will breath a huge sigh of relief, pardon the cliche, when I promise not to burden them with any Grand Theory of my own. ¶ You seem a curiously bellicose writer. If "Tomasello's disagreement" is so easily dismissed as "hype and semantics", I wonder how he has got where he has got, how he has stayed there, and how he is invited as a guest lecturer by, and given a respectful (if sceptical) hearing by, university departments in which UG and Minimalism are prominent. ("OR" tells me that last year he spoke to the linguistics dept at Essex, for example.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The following long sentence: "I think it's safe to say that only a minority of linguists concede that hairy apes, parrots, poodles, chinchillas and others have an ability in language as a whole (as opposed to vocabulary or phonetic perception in isolation) that's anything like that (whether spoken or signed) of a human" equates the language abilities of certain apes with that of other species. Apes and birds have different abilities.Lestrade (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

There's no equation in the sentence you quote. The point of the sentence is to contrast human language to all other types of animal communication. The sentence does not compare types of ape communication with types of other animal communication. Pinkville (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think that people who are interested in linguistics would want to use correct language. To say that "the insistence on n't seems curiously Brit-o-centric; such utterances as 'I could care less' are fully idiomatic in the US, I believe" is a bit unconcerned, relaxed, and careless. "I could care less" means "I care very much." Its opposite, "I couldn't care less," means "I care very little." As far as contrasting human language with the communication of all other animals is concerned, such animals as Koko may lead us to believe that language ability lies on a graduated scale. The degrees and grades of abilities may continuously blend into each other and overlap. This is in contrast to Chomsky's belief that human language ability is totally unique and very different from the language abilities of other animals and is separated from theirs by a wide, unbridgeable gap.Lestrade (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Your theory or my theory about language are of no consequence. The only issue is how, in this article, to describe Chomsky's theory/ies. I've read several of Chomsky's most recent academic papers on the subject of language (notably, those co-written with Fitch and Hauser) and I think it would be fair to say that he would strongly disagree with the idea that there might be a "graduated scale" (by the way, how graduated? what sort of scale?) of language ability for humans and animals. Interestingly, he and his co-authors point out some respects in which bird communication, for instance, is closer to human language than ape communication (e.g. the ability of many bird species to imitate speech is far greater than that of apes or chimpanzees). But the distinction made in Chomsky's work is, indeed, that language is a unique faculty of humans... communication is not. [He even raises the possibility that human language evolved (in part) for reasons other than communication.] Further, many necessary components of (human) language are shared with other animals (sensorimotor elements, conceptual-intentional elements), but Chomsky (and Fitch and Hauser) assert that there must be (only) a few or even one component of language that is uniquely human. He and his co-writers suggest that this component may be only recursion, but because so little is yet known, they urge further research into this and other areas of study (and outline those most likely to be productive). In short, there are aspects of human language that are shared with various types of animal communication (along with other cognitive abilities), but the core of human language, with its recursive property, is fundamentally unlike anything else. Final note, it's important not to confuse communication with language, they are not the same thing. Even trees communicate (chemically, for instance), but only a poet (probably a bad one) would claim that they are using language. Pinkville (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pinkville has ably responded to the more substantive parts of what you wrote; allow me to respond to the remainder. I would think that people who are interested in linguistics would want to use correct language, you say. One would indeed; I regret any incorrectness in my writing, though I don't think you have pointed out any. To say that "the insistence on n't seems curiously Brit-o-centric; such utterances as 'I could care less' are fully idiomatic in the US, I believe" is a bit unconcerned, relaxed, and careless. Yes indeed, I should have given references. So here you have the Canadian born, US domiciled psychologist Steven Pinker (famously) defending the idiomaticity of "could care less". (The defense is in rather more legible form here, within a useful message that charmingly compares the phrase with "head over heels".) Here is the US linguist Mark Liberman's investigation into a claim about its prosody made rather too casually by Pinker. And here is Liberman again, actually doing corpus research on the matter. The statement that "I could care less" means "I care very much." is utter nonsense: in US idiom (and perhaps also Canadian idiom, though I don't know), it means "I don't care"; to somebody whose idiolect doesn't happen to include this phrase and who reads it out of context, it would not necessarily imply "I care very much" but instead would mean "I care a significant amount". -- Hoary (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I had sedulously avoided this conversation, but reading over it again I have noticed an error of mine. Hoary, I failed to notice that your original post was a new author, and not simply an extension of Lestrade's previous post. I was in a rush and skimmed over it very quickly. I apologize for any confusion. CABlankenship (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fine. Let's all just walk over to the fridge and pull out a beer. (Or whatever, if you're teetotal or Muslim or underage or planning to drive home or just don't happen to like beer.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I put together the article on Evolution of Language Controversy in the Criticisms of Noam Chomsky page. There is more information on this subject there, including a discussion of the sexual selection argument that HCF put forth. That subject is highly controversial. In all honesty, it's rather difficult to see where exactly Chomsky is coming from on that issue. It's a respectable argument, but it seems clear that he's probably wrong. Pinker/Jackendoff seem to have gotten the better of this dispute. CABlankenship (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) I disagree with the following judgment: "The statement that 'I could care less' means 'I care very much.' is utter nonsense." The reason for my disagreement is that "I could care less" means that I possess the quality of caring to the extent that I could reduce it by caring less, if I so choose. The quantity of my caring could be lessened. On the other hand, if the quantity of my caring were zero, then I couldn't possibly lessen it, and I couldn't possibly care less. (2) According to Chomsky's notion of innate universal grammar, all human languages are similar in structure. This is certainly a bold claim. It would have been more intelligent and smart if he had called his innate grammar "general" instead of "universal." After all, how could he have investigated all human languages? He should admit that he investigated several or many languages and made a generalization as a result of his investigations. (3) If Chomsky claimed that all humans are endowed with a genetic language faculty, is he returning us to the unfashionable concept of Faculty Psychology that many believe is obsolete?Lestrade (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

On English, you are now conflating the non-negligible and the very much. On Chomsky, you ... seem keen to discuss Chomsky. However this talk page is not for discussion about Chomsky, it's for discussion of the article about Chomsky. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Science connected to politics

CABlankenship seems to think that we should separate Chomsky's "silly opinions on politics" from his scientific contributions. But linguist John Lyons thinks that they are inseparable. Chomsky claims that human language is totally different from animal communication. Lyons asserted that Chomsky's "theory of language and his political philosophy are by no means unconnected …. It is Chomsky's conviction that human beings are different from animals or machines and that this difference should be respected both in science and in government; and it is this conviction that underlies and unifies his politics, his linguistics, and his philosophy." (Chomsky, 1970, p. 6 f.) If Chomsky's opinions on politics are silly, does that mean that his opinions on linguistics and philosophy are also silly, since they are inseparable, according to Lyons?Lestrade (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Obviously not. Such a conclusion would be a non sequitur. Regardless, the point is moot. Chomsky himself frequently and persuasively denies any connection between his political writings and his work in linguistics. Pinkville (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok let's see:

-User CABlankenship seems to think Chomsky’s opinions are silly and should be separated from his scientific contributions.

-John Lyons thinks Chomsky linguistic contributions are connected to his political philosophy

-Therefore, his linguistic contributions are silly.??????????

With all due respect, the only silly thing I see, is that kind of reasoning and the huge gaps in logic that are meant to connect that argument.

Could any of the two premises be false, thus making the conclusion invalid?

User CABlankenship's remarks about the silliness of Chomsky's political views are his subjective opinion,which by the way, happen to be highly unsubstantiated.

Should we think Chomsky's political views are silly just because a Wikipedian thinks so?

Does John Lyons also considers Chomsky's political views as silly? If so, what are the arguments used to label them as such?

Likeminas (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then the point is not moot because "moot" means debatable or doubtful. If what you say is true, then the linguist John Lyons is totally wrong.Lestrade (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

So thirty-eight years ago (before the average Wikipedia editor was born), Lyons stated that "[a] conviction that human beings are different from animals or machines" "underlies and unifies [Chomsky's] politics, his linguistics, and his philosophy". A huge number of politicians, linguists, cognitive scientists and philosophers are convinced that human beings are different from animals or machines. The contention that this conviction unifies Chomsky's politics, linguistics, and philosophy might be an interesting one; one obvious problem with citing Lyons is that he expressed it when most of Chomsky's politics and linguistics was yet to be written. ¶ Meanwhile, I'm sure that Pinkville fully understands the meaning of "moot". -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that we were supposed to ignore everything that Chomsky wrote before his 42nd birthday. Meanwhile, how can you be so sure about Pinkville's mind, which is something about which you have no direct knowledge and can only judge by his written words?Lestrade (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Dear Lestrade, we are not supposed to ignore everything that Chomsky wrote before, or after, his 42nd or any other birthday. But neither should we confuse the present of 1970 with the present of 2009. And I do indeed judge Pinkville's mind, or more particularly his mental lexicon, by his written words; I have read plenty of these, and do not remember ever having seen a lexical or stylistic stumble. -- Hoary (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky's thoughts are not ephemeral. They are timeless. Being the products of smartness and intelligent genius, they will endure as long as human civilization lasts. It doesn't matter whether they were written in 1970 or 2009. John Lyons's contention that Chomsky's linguistic principles are connected to his political principles may be true, even though Lyons wrote in 1970. Am I to believe that Chomsky's linguistics were connected to his politics in 1970 but not in 2009? This is unacceptable because we are here dealing with thoughts that are for all ages, not for only a short time. Linguistically, innate genetic universal grammar is uniquely human and is not shared by mere animals. Politically, human dignity far exceeds the worth of animals and machines now, as it did in 1970. These are not fads or temporary enthusiasms, good in 1970 but not in 2009. It must be admitted that Chomsky's linguistics and his politics are inter–related in 2009, as they were in 1970. Lestrade (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade .... abridged Hoary (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat, Chomsky himself denies any links between his politics and his work in linguistics. Pinkville (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. Besides "debatable", moot means "having no practical significance", which is the meaning I intended and assumed would be understood. Pinkville (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lestrade, I think we can agree that intelligent genius is the best kind of genius; but in various other places you lose me. Chomsky's ideas about language show a strong continuity but have also evolved, and indeed have evolved so drastically that university linguistics departments worldwide have plenty of people who agreed with Chomsky up to a point (e.g. GB) but no further. What Lyons wrote in 1970 may indeed have been true in 1970, and if it were true in 1970 it might indeed be true now; however, this talk page is not the place to argue over this. It would be much better if you were to put some of your time and energy into reading up one or other of the surveys of Chomsky's entire work (both linguistic and political) that have appeared during the last decade. There is no obligation either to admit or to deny that the linguistic and the political are interrelated. It may be worth noting that in 1970 Lyons claimed that they were related, and it's certainly worth noting that Chomsky has long claimed that they are not related; neither the former nor the latter should decide this matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC) .... abridged Hoary (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to a request by Lestrade to delete all of his/her contributions to this talk page, I've deleted one part of one contribution and my response to that.

Let's continue discussion -- of the article, not of Chomsky -- in a collegial spirit. And if I've been partly responsible for the acrimony, I apologize for that. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics is an integral part of modern philosophy, but I have not studied linguistics so I wouldn't know how they are related, just that they are inseparably related, especially to the analytical branch of philosophy. And philosophy has a very strong relation to politics, as many, many philosophers are also political theorist, starting with the tradition of Plato and Aristotle. By this line of thinking, it can be said that Chomsky's linguistics is indirectly linked to his political thought. Wandering Courier (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's split this section

The Bibliography section consists of 1177 words and is 9kB in size. How about we split it to Bibliography of Noam Chomsky? ←Spidern→ 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at least mention his most important works (those that have wikilinks) on the Main Page? I think in most cases one is searching for one of those books anyway, so we could save people a click and some searching.-- ExpImp^talkcon 09:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Impetious (sic) Imperialist"

This spurious and misspelt title has appeared on the bibliography since it was first inserted by an anonymous editor in July 2007. The same editor also added the non-existent Scandalous Hegemony, which was removed in August 2007. But somehow, this one seems to have slipped the net until removed earlier this week.

The origin of these false titles appears to be this joke in a Danish linguistics blog (which misspelt "impetious" as "impetous"). But now, an editor is attempting to replace the title, claiming that it is "shown on many other sites". Indeed it is; but these all seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia, or quoting it. And they all seem to repeat the same spelling mistake first made by the anon editor here. It really is a good idea to check the provenance of content and the reliability -- and seriousness -- of sources, before adding any stray allusion to articles! RolandR (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

hahaha, I always wondered why there was so many IPs adding on "Scandalous Hegemony" as a Chomsky book. I'll keep an eye out for anyone that tries to insert that or the other title in the future.--Jersey Devil (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Father(s) of modern linguistics?

From the first paragraph of this article: Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as the father of modern linguistics. From the first paragraph of Structural linguistics: Saussure stressed examining language as a static system of interconnected units. He is thus known as the father of modern linguistics... (And indeed from Ferdinand de Saussure: Saussure is widely considered the 'father' of 20th-century linguistics).

Perhaps there are yet more articles that state others as the father of modern linguistics. Is there a good argument for leaving it all alone, or can we change them to say one of the fathers of modern linguistics or something along those lines? Not being a regular contributor to these pages, I thought it best to check out the situation here first. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"One of the fathers of modern linguistics" sounds fair to me. Dynablaster (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too. DocteurCosmos (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And me too. (Despite wondering who'll be proferred as the mother of modern linguistics. Or indeed which (in)discipline will be referred to as the bastard son of modern linguistics.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the bastard son of modern linguistics someone named Cosby? Pinkville (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the fact that Chomsky is listed as the father of modern linguistics in the article People known as the father or mother of something have any bearing on this discussion?Grunge6910 (talk) 9:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That list should probably be changed. Ferdinand de Saussure is just as much the father of modern linguistics as Chomsky is. --n-k, 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are compelling arguments for both; but yes it's probably too one-sided. Grunge6910 (talk) 6:45 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input; I went ahead and changed the sentence in question. I also changed the analogous sentence over at Ferdinand de Saussure. I agree too that the list of fathers/mothers of something should probably list both of these guys, but it looks like sources are needed over there, and the sentence saying that de Saussure is a father of modern linguistics isn't referenced. I don't know enough about him myself to know of a good source... if anyone else does can you make the change? Thanks! romarin [talk ] 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. DocteurCosmos (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bacon number

as we are giving his erdos-number, i thought, just for those who are interested, i'd give his bacon-number here on the talk page. depending on whether you count "Stupidity" as a movie, he either has a number of 2 or 3.

Stupidity - Noam Chomsky + John Cleese
The Big Picture - John Cleese + Kevin Bacon

Apollo 13 - Kevin Bacon + David Andrews
Kerouac, the Movie - Jack Coulter + Tom Wolfe
Manufacturing Consent - Tom Wolfe + Noam Chomsky

sorry for this totally non-encyclopedic information. :))-- ExpImp^talkcon 09:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky's views on children's acquisition of language

Chomsky stirred up the world of developmental psychology by proposing that there is a "language module" in the mind of man, which for all intents and purposes contains the "template" for human communication, and which merely needs activation by exposure to spoken language. Language in general is therefore "pre-programmed" in to the brain, only a few basic rules, such as the ones that make one language distinct from another, needs to be acquired by the child. This was quite a controversial proposition in its day, and if this theory was unpopular then, it is practically extinct by now. I have yet to come across any developmental psychologist, cognitive neuropsychologist, or educational researcher who supports this extreme variant of a nativist theory. Constructivism is a much more dominant force, sociocultural theories are all the rage, and even behaviorism lives on in its "behavioral analysis" disguise. But strong linguistic nativism is dead (if it ever was alive). I do not think this article reflects this fact properly. This theory is a blot on an otherwise brilliant career - but I think we owe the reader to also point out som failures, not only his successes. If references are needed, Patricia Miller's "Theories of Developmental Psychology" (2001), or any other good introductory book on developmental psychology will make this abundantly clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.48.233 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but aren't you referring to the language acquisition device? Chomsky has pretty much left that behind in favor of P&P and minimalism. This is well documented in all the generative-related articles. Grunge6910 (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky antisemitism

Read behorehand: Anti-Semitism is impossible to equate with anti-Zionism/anti-Israel. Since Palestinians, Arabs, Egyptians, etc. all fall under the category of "Semites," given a particular speech conducive of the sentiments of say the group Hezbollah may qualify rather as pro-Semitic in some ways rather than anti-Semitic. This important fact is unfortunately often misrepresented by unknowing observers especially in the United States. 76.181.43.101 (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a misrepresentation at all, nor is the term used unknowingly when it's used in that way - in fact, antisemitism (please read that page) means "discrimination against Jews"; that is its only meaning. If you look up the term in a few good dictionaries [1] you'll find that I'm right. It's true that Arabs are also Semitic peoples, but that is irrelevant; your argument is almost as silly as if you were stating that a "carpet" must be a kind of car, or else a kind of pet. 72.128.205.249 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are people who believe what you say, and as many who believe otherwise. Neither is "silly." Respect. 67.194.150.69 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this summary, critics base their beliefs on more than one or two issues, not just the Faurisson affair and a speech to a Palestinian group. Their reasons include Chomsky's support for Hezbollah retaining its weapons, support for Finkelstein, positions taken and things said in his debates with Dershowitz, etc. We shouldn't detail each of these in the article, of course, but an incomplete summary is easily misleading. That the accusations have been made is not, in any way, controversial. The accusations and debates are matters of established fact. The truth of those accusations is what are controversial and should be dealt with in a NPOV manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Ryan Wise 06:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your actions betray your mere pretense of commitment to NPOV. You have not only reinstated nebulous smearing allegations of “anti-semitism” emanating from dubious sources (see below), in deleting responses from the other side you have effectively refused any right of Chomsky to defend himself against such serious allegations. Balance requires that allegations of a serious (in fact potentially libelous) nature entail a more stringent burden of proof than normal claims as well as the opportunity of the target to defend oneself against such claims.

Let’s examine the “authority” that you are using to string together the perceived evidence and make the case for Chomsky’s so-called anti-semitism. Who exactly is Benjamin Kerstein? And why are his interpretations (his case hinges extensively upon highly subjective interpretations and extrapolations of some of Chomsky’s statements.) considered notable? In fact, Mr. Kerstein is an American student taking courses in Israel. He is also an unpublished novelist, and has for several years authored a blog, “Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite” characterized by overwrought ranting, Evidently, Kerstein’s qualifications are two-fold: 1) He has an obsessive loathing for Noam Chomsky and 2) David Horowitz and the functionaries of his lavishly funded propaganda outlets are naturally impressed by this kind of sensationalistic fodder. (That Kerstein’s criticisms are replete with misrepresentation and outright distortion is readily demonstrable.)

I have always wondered why there has been such a hasty insistency to thrust labels onto opponents in political discourse. The typical strategy of the accusers is to distort and misrepresent their subject so as to pretend that some stigmatizing label has justification. If the label is accepted by the reader at an early stage, so much the better; a rejectionist predisposition is thus internalized, further disinterested exploration becomes unnecessary. In fact a kind of psychological taboo is established against a sympathetic reading in an effort to understand what the subject really intends to say. The prejudice instilled by the labeling process renders any deeper exploration unworthy except as the target of predetermined denunciation and ridicule.

When Chomsky is associated with Finkelstein it is implied that is a self-evident fact that Finkelstein is anti-semitic, when in reality this is a highly controversial example of labeling not readily disassociated from the political motivations of Finkelstein’s accusers. The support of Finkelstein’s work, not just by Chomsky but also by notable figures such as Raul Hilberg (originator of Holocaust studies) and Oxford historian Avi Shlaim suggests that Finkelstein presents arguments that are well worth considering; however, inviting readers to engage in a process leading to a comprehensive understanding of events and their relation to persisting and evolving institutional structures is exactly what the accusers wish to avoid. Instead they use labeling tactics to stigmatize a target in an attempt to impair any chance of informed deliberation.

Similar motives are at work when support of Hezbollah’s policy “retaining its arms”, unless certain conditions are met, is cited as some sort of self-evident example of anti-semitism. It certainly is a controversial issue, and notable arguments have been made from several different perspectives; but the hasty resort to "anti-semitic" labeling only undermines the posssibility of the kind of constructive discussion which is probably the only peaceful route out of an extremely complex dilemma. The appeal is to the simplistic black and white depiction in US/Israeli propaganda of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, ignoring the organic link between the organization and the constituency by which its enjoys broad support, particularly for its provision of an array of vital social services, and representation in Lebanese parliamentary and municipal political governance. All this must be ignored and of course, Hezbollah must be presented as a monolithic entity, with all actions ascribed to it emanating from the great satan Nasrallah. Also ignored are the legitimate apprehensions that shi’ and many other Lebanese feel concerning the possibility of Israeli military aggression (established by the precedent of repeated invasions,in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and most recently 2006, as well as awareness of joint US-Israel plans for a crushing attack on Hezbollah.) To this we might also note the incapacity of the Lebanese government, both because of its current sectional political structure and the fact that the Lebanon government has the highest per capita national debt in the world(largely due to successive Israeli military devstations) to provide effective security. Nor are the implications of an unconditional disarmament for the tangled of political balance in their national and wider geo-political contexts worth considering as legitimate reasons unassociated with anti-semitism. Nor yet again the fact that significant non-Shi’ elements, including large elements of the Christian community (ie: The Free Political Movement) also view the Hezbollah as a resistance movement and moreover the only viable military deterrent against Israeli aggression in the current situation. Does their support of Hezbollah’s current right to bear arms also imply antisemitism by definition or is it perhaps necessary to understand their reasons and listen to their qualifications? Finally as Chomsky notes, “The United States could provide a credible guarantee that Israel will not attack, undercutting the argument for retention of arms. But there are no signs of that.” (Chomsky-Achcar- Perilous Power- The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy.)BernardL 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore if, according to the way you present your criticism - a description of overwhelming privilege and power enjoyed by American Jews constitutes "proof" of anti-semitism shall we then conclude from the following similar remarks that historian Raul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews) is anti-semite too?

"The American Jewish community is the wealthiest and most successful in the world. Already ten years ago there were 18 Jewish billionaires, now there are many more. One of them is Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and one of the main shareholders of Seagrams. These people could put an end to poverty among Holocaust survivors within one week." (interview: Berliner Zeitung , September 4, 2000)BernardL 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Be serious now. The criticisms exist. If you want to present Chomsky's counterarguments, do so. How have I kept Chomsky from "defending himself?" I haven't argued against the inclusion of any text. Censorship is your goal, not mine. The statements of his critics (who are also living) have not been acurately represented, and should be, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Apparently your view of "balance" and NPOV requires deletion of factual material that you don't agree with. That Chomsky's opponents have taken certain positions is fact. Whether you agree with those opinions is irrelevant. The precise nature of the criticisms, and how Chomsky responds is the matter for debate. It's bogus to say that we can only include criticisms that you personally agree with.

If you want to demonstrate that prominent critics misrepresent Chomsky, go right ahead. Create a separate page for it, if you need to go into detail. But what you're pushing for now is censorship of views you don't like, pure and simple, not the right to respond. Look, the criticisms do exist, and come from prominent sources. Right or wrong, they should be represented, and accurately. They aren't now, and have been regularly twisted or elimiated.

It is a fact that people have used certain lines of argument to make certain accusations. Would you like to argue that Horowitz has made a different argument than what has been presented? Go ahead. But who is right and who is wrong is not up to you to decide, as strong and unflagging as your opinion might be.

however, inviting readers to engage in a process leading to a comprehensive understanding of events and their relation to persisting and evolving institutional structures is exactly what the accusers wish to avoid. -- Great. We can further such an understanding of this issue using Chomsky's arguments counterposed with those of his critics, if that's really what you want. Somehow, though, I get the (rather ironic) feeling that you'd rather the issue not be discussed.

--Ryan Wise 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky spoke about this when the page was sent to him, he responded with what he thought about the criticisms that were outlandish like this one. I think if you'd look it up (it's in the archives on this talk page) it might be suggestive as to how to continue. q 01:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

this debate begins with the demand (Chomsky's or not?) not to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism...What if the poor targets of "Anti-Zionist" Dreck disagree? Do you sent them away to Umerziehungslager?--Radh (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher?

Due to comments I made under a YouTube video (in which I claimed Chomsky was *not* a philosopher), people saw fit to add the claim that he is a philosopher to this Wikipedia article. However, reading through this article, and pretty much anything else about him I can find, I don't see how there is sufficient support for the claim that he is a philosopher. Not one single article amongst the numerous shown here is directed primarily at philosophy. One might claim that the things he does has implications to philosophy, but then the same could be said of Einstein, Newton or anyone else who has changed our understanding of reality. There is no such thing as "The Chomskyian philosophy", he doesn't write books on philosophy. His "eyes glaze over" comment about post-structuralism etc makes it clear that he doesn't just disagree with a particular philosophy, he considers it nonsense because it *IS* philosophy. For these reasons, I think the claim that he is a philosophy either needs to be substantiated, or simply deleted. Qed (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I added the fact that Chomsky was a philosopher months ago. Had nothing to do with your YouTube comments. What's the connection? It's easily proven that he is a philosopher. Look him up in any dictionary of philosophy (Cambridge, Routledge, any others), and he's always listed as a philosopher. Cambridge lists him as "a preeminent American linguist, philosopher, and political activist," and that "Chomsky's best-known scientific achievement is the establishment of a rigorous and philosophically compelling foundation for the scientific study of the grammar of natural language" (138). Later on, the text notes his "most significant contributions to philosophy" like his "influential rejection of behaviorism" and his "adherence to methodological naturalism." Furthermore, I suggest you read the following paper which draws numerous connections of his to philosophy ("Chomsky Amid the Philosophers"). A great many of his texts on language can and in fact are considered philosophy. He is not a postmodernist for concrete reasons, not because it is philosophical. His work is pretty firmly within the Analytic tradition. His status as a philosopher is unimpeachable.Grunge6910 (talk)

Of course *Philosophers* call him a philosopher. Its the same way that black people like to call Barak Obama or Tiger Wood black (they are both mixed race, of course.) I would like to call Chomsky a computer scientist for his creation of "Chomsky Normal Form", however, and this is the point, I highly doubt that *HE* would self-identify as a computer science, and for good reason -- he doesn't do computer science. He just does things which have implications in computer science. (Similarly, neither Charles Darwin nor Francis Crick are considered the inventors of genetic programming, though clearly it follows from their work.)

"A philosophically compelling foundation ..." Oh for crying out loud. He created (or nearly so) the very hard *SCIENCE* of linguistics which *OBSOLETED* prior nonsense spouted by philosophers who will have nothing to do with intellectual accountability. A side effect of his contribution has been the *REMOVAL* of philosophy from linguistics. Similarly Cantor put to rest the very meaning of infinite once and for all (although you will certainly still find philosophers to this day who can't wrap their mind around it) -- nobody calls Cantor a philosopher just because Wittgenstein was crying like a baby about what he said. I mean why do you find yourself reaching so far to find an *adverb* attribution of philosophy to Chomsky. If he is a philosopher, why doesn't he come out and just say it? Why is it so incredibly difficult to find direct evidence of it? You are making a claim about the *occupation* of an incredibly well known public figure and you can barely find even this flimsy evidence about it?

The paper you cite is a nonsensical attempt to apply the label of philosopher to the point of containing clear errors: Chomsky as a rationalist? Chomsky has on many occasions referred to specific empirical evidence in supporting his work, which is essentially non-rationalist. There are papers calling Chomsky anti-semetic, a liar, anti-american, etc, etc. Why don't you put those in the description of him? You put those in "Criticisms of Chomsky" for a reason -- you need to clearly identify that this is what *OTHER* people are saying about him, and you need to supply citations of what they are saying and why they say it (so someone researching the criticism can analyze the argument).

Look, Daniel Dennet is a philosopher. Evidence of this is so obvious its not even worth discussing but the most important of which is that he clearly self-identifies as a philosopher as he produces books and paper on the subject. Of course Chomsky has diverse interests which you might claim dilutes such evidence, but there is clear evidence of him being a leftist activist, an anarchist sympathizer and a linguist, in all cases by overt self-identification (one can easily compile just YouTube clips of each instance). If one asks what the Chomsky school of thought is, they will give you his linguistic theories, not his philosophy. If you ask what Chomsky's philosophy is directly, people will tell you he is a leftist and espouses "The Principle of Universality". If you ask him what he thinks of philosophy itself you find him making critical remarks about post-structuralism, not because he disagrees with it, but because he disagrees with the frame of mind necessary to even take it seriously.

You can't call me a skier because I have skied. You cannot call me a painter because I have painted. You cannot call me a musician because I've played an instrument in the past. You cannot call me a wine taster because I have tasted wine. Chomsky is no more a philosopher than *I* am a philosopher (and I assure you I am not.)

Without more serious substantiation, it is simply an inappropriate characterization of him. Qed (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If the fact that all dictionaries of philosophy characterize him as a philosopher, that he has written about and teaches philosophy of language, that his work has been scrutinized and discussed by philosophers within the context of the field, and that he subscribes to certain philosophical ideas and traditions, isn't enough evidence for you, I don't know what else could satisfy you.

Given all that, especially the characterization of him as a "philosopher" by professional philosophers and reference texts, I think it's more than justified in listing him as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to weigh in here?Grunge6910 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC).

Is that seriously your justification? Some dictionary of self-interested philosophers feel the need to claim a serious intellectual amongst their ranks even though he himself just barely stops short of denouncing the entire field himself? That isn't even close to satisfying me. You must get it from him or his writings -- you are trying to establish what he does, and cannot get quotations from him, his employers (except by indirect claims of "Philosophy of ..." by which reason, of course, you could claim anyone with a PhD as a philosopher) or his book publishers to substantiate your claim?

Go reread the issue about "The Faurisson affair" in the criticism section: Faurisson quotes Chomsky in his book, but clearly oversteps the bounds by claiming Chomsky as a supporter for his point of view (Holocaust denial). Then people start calling Chomsky a holocaust denier (a claim so ridiculous it can only be a reflection on how stupid people are) as a result. Chomsky himself had to clarify his position, try to explain to people what freedom of speech is, and that its not the same thing as supporting such a view. Faurisson was claiming Chomsky amongst his ranks because of some ridiculous indirect stretching of some perceived support, and relied on general ignorance of the subtle difference in the population (which apparently was real and true amongst some) even in the face of specific denials by Chomsky and a very obvious inability to build a real case outside this indirect evidence.

Now compare this to what you are doing. You have these indirect claims that Chomsky is a philosopher, quoting entirely from people with a vested interest in calling him a philosopher and have not one iota of a case outside of this (ignoring the prima facie negative case). Even in citing a book you claim proves that he is a philosopher you don't dare actually quote FROM IT. Chomsky himself says he has no philosophical point of view. You are basically rerunning "The Faurisson affair" against him, except rather than calling him a holocaust denier, you are calling him a philosopher.

And you think its ok to do this, why? Because being a philosopher is some honor while being a holocaust denier is not? He decries it and you cannot make a serious case that he IS a philosopher. You are only making a case that PHILOSOPHERS call him a philosopher, which is insufficient. If I put down that Chomsky is a juggling enthusiast, and I find a bunch of juggling enthusiasts who embrace the idea that Chomsky is a juggler (its possible; juggling is a kind of marginal activity and the increased exposure by being associated to such an intellect would also appeal to the natural quirkiness that's associated with juggling), do you think that would be good enough for me to put that in his biography as well? Commentary by philosophers just doesn't cut it.

Oh and just because he teaches a course entitled "Philosophy of Language", he is a philosopher? So is everyone with a Doctorate in Philosophy a philosopher as well? Are atheists theologians?

If you want to "satisfy" me show his philosophical contributions that is more than philosophers REACTIONS to his SCIENTIFIC or POLITICAL activities. For example you could show me a dissertation by him on the meaning of existence, or justification for truth or something of that nature. Dennet, for example, in a recent talk explained that people don't generally believe in god, but rather believe in the the belief of god. Nobody can deny that that is philosophy first and that its religious implications are secondary (i.e., Dennet is NOT a theologian, though his philosophy has implications to theology). This is philosophy, and the case is easily and obviously made. When Chomsky talks about principles and parameters, or the social conditions of indigenous people, or the failures of government the philosophical implications or points of view on those things are so clearly the furthest thing from his mind. He cares about proving his point with empirical evidence; the activities of straight up scientific mind, not a philosophical one. So you need to show me something else that Chomsky has done that makes for a convincing case that he engages in philosophy.

To satisfy me, you will certainly have to present new material from Chomsky that I have not seen before, that shows him engaging in philosophy (note that this is different from "engaging with philosophers"). And then to make the case you would have to demonstrate that this was a common activity of his. Then, of course, you would probably have to have a section in the article entitled Philosophy of Noam Chomsky (or something very similar which would substantiate the claim that he is a philosopher) just as there is a whole article dedicated to Politics of Noam Chomsky. I mean even in the Influence in other fields section not one philosopher or even philosophical idea is mentioned. Qed (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're not going to be convinced by anything, but anyway. Simply by looking at his list of publications throws up a number of articles of his which would be considered to be in the field of philosophy (and published in philosophy journals and books).81.23.56.53 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's perhaps helpful to say *why* philosophical reference works list Chomsky as a philosopher. i.e. he's contributed to philosophy. Read the following entries, which are in addition to those cited on the main page. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Simon Blackburn. 2nd ed 2005: entry for Chomsky: "American linguist, philosopher, and political activist..." A Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Antony Flew, 1979, entry for Chomsky: "American linguistic scientist and philosopher.", the entry goes on to say, "His work on linguistics also has a bearing on philosophy, notably on disputes between empiricists and rationaists..." --Dannyno (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty infuriating. Its like you haven't bothered to read what I said at all. With the level of supporting evidence you just gave, you cannot claim that Chomsky is a philosopher unless in the same breath you also call him a holocaust denier. You must obtain credible evidence from NON-PHILOSOPHERS -- the most obvious candidate being something from his own writings, or from interviews with him. Come on! A philosopher: One who engages in the art of philosophy. As evidenced by ________? Fill the blank!

Can you imagine if some struggling circus started claiming Chomsky was a trapeze artist and others circuses just endorsed this claim? What if a bunch of comedians claimed Chomsky was actually a private stand-up comic, or that he secretly wrote all their jokes? What if a bunch of bird watchers or stamp collectors claimed Chomsky amongst their ranks? You wouldn't go to those people or their publications to verify it. That's laughably preposterous. You would be immediately and forcibly compelled either to ask him, or look for a citation amongst HIS writings or find some other external non-interested 3rd party confirmation of such information. You simply have not met this standard here.

You must also explain why Wikipedia doesn't claim Cantor was a philosopher. He redefined infinity much to the distress of Wittgenstein. His discoveries had enormous impact on philosophers -- it made them shut up about infinity, since they clearly had no idea what they were talking about on the subject.

Ridiculous statements like "It sounds like you're not going to be convinced by anything" is ad hominem. This is your argument: Somebody says "Chomsky is a member of my club because me and other members of my club say he is and members of my club has to react to things Chomsky says. Therefore Chomsky is part of my club". All the citations provided, are just a repetition of this same argument. Its true the repeating the identical argument over and over will not convince me. But some form of actual evidence will. Qed (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Update:) Ok, so I painstaking looked through that entire list of Chomsky's publications. They are covered almost entire of the following subjects: Linguistics, Psychology/Cognitive science, Politics, Computer Science,

The only exceptions that are in *possible* support of your case is

1) "Comments: Galen Strawson, Mind Reality". His considerations for the mind usually lean towards congitive science and psychology, but I would need to see this quoted or read it for myself to be sure.

2) "A Companions to the Philosophy of Mind" which I managed to read from the Amazon "Search Inside" feature, and its clear that he's taking a purely scientific and psychological point of view for trying to understand the mind and does not pose one single philosophical question or idea, nor makes reference to any philosophical ideas. He also states up front that he was asked about his thoughts and wrote a reply, as he commonly does probably without knowing into what book it would ultimately be included until after wards. I.e., this is evidence of him being a philosopher in the same way that the recent Hustler magazine article he wrote is evidence that he supports pornography.

3) "Plato had Access to the Switch" which I have no idea what to make of; apparently its in Italian. Published in the same magazine where he also published a clearly Linguistic article 2 days earlier ("At the Sources of Speech")

4) "Exchanges on Reconstructive Knowledge". The abstract for this is given as:

In this volume, physicists and social scientists challenge the bedrock of scientific thinking whose applications can prove destructive to existing social systems, and shift the debate to the need for a radical change of direction that would replace traditional "value-free" inquiry and research with a knowledge model that incorporates social responsibility, democratic principles, and comprehensive ethical standards.

which is probably just a combination of his scientific outlook and his political/social-science outlook.

5) “Reply to Putnam.” In Readings in Philosophy of Psychology 2, which I am almost sure is a reply to someone responding to his thing about B.F.Skinner, which is a purely scientific (specifically: behaviorism) debate.

6) “Reply to R. Wardhaugh.” College English. Again, I have no idea on this one.

7) And here's the funniest one of them all: “The relevance of scientific linguistics to philosophy.” Paper presented to a session of the Western Branch of the American Philosophical Association, Minneapolis (May 1966): 1-25. Unpublished. Did you notice that last word there? UNPUBLISHED. Even if he WANTED to be a philosopher, here's a philosophical association that refuses to publish him.

8) “What is Said to Be.” cowritten by Israel Scheffler. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, is the only one here that seems to be genuinely about Philosophy, and Analytical Philosophy at that (apparently having something to do with ontology).

So in all those ridiculous amounts of writings, there is one book from the very early years of his career. Now if you people were honest, you could 1) Dig up the examples I give above and settle the matter by their real content (including #8, which is the only real example, I think) 2) find other publications by him to make your case, and more importantly cite some amount of text written by him to explain the case. And if you do call him a philosopher based on the #8 citation above alnoe, say so in the article, and explain why you think this evidence is worthy. Qed (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He majored in philosophy you asshat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I majored in Mathematics. Does that make me a mathematician? If so why did I take up an occupation programming computers and why have I never published any mathematical papers? I personally know at least one person who has earned a degree in philosophy and who most definitely is not professional philosopher. Qed (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose as a point aimed at your rather silly remark about a philosophical publication refusing to publish him, as well as at your stubbornness in general is this. He has at least one paper published in Mind, which is notoriously difficult to be published in, as it is one of the best philosophy journals in the UK, as well as worldwide. It is also purely a philosophy journal, the article was published in 1995, which may or may not count as recent to you. Nonetheless, it is still one of the several (not that there need to be several) papers that he has published in philosophy, in philosophy journals. Being published in Mind pretty much guarantees that you count as a philosopher. BTW, the paper in question is 'Language and Nature', Mind, New Series, Vol. 104, No. 413 (Jan., 1995), pp. 1-61. 81.23.56.53 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why being published in Mind makes anyone a philosopher and I don't see why anyone reading Wikipedia would be similarly convinced, especially if they were not a philosopher. But for crying out loud, if what you say is the case, you need not do anything more than simply QUOTE FROM THAT ARTICLE to prove your point. Why is this so hard? Why are you constantly keeping the evidence at arms length? There's more credible evidence for the Loch Ness monster than what you are providing.

Look, just substitute "white supremist" for the word "philosopher" and ask yourself what standard you would have to meet to establish that he was that. No testimony from white supremists would be good enough and neither would republications of his articles in their literature. You would have to go to the substances of the articles (or speeches or behavior or whatever), obviously. Given HIS negative comments about philosophy, it seems pretty clear that you are in fact FORCED to go to that level of detail to substantiate the case. Qed (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that Chomsky has actively engaged in philosophy for his entire career, as substantiated by the references I provided in the lead, it is completely absurd to assert that he has made "negative comments about philosophy." He has made negative comments about certain branches of philosophy -- basically the Continental school, specifically postmodernism and its cousins. This is a far cry from making "negative comments about philosophy" as a whole. 66.30.220.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC).

I have a brain and I'm pretty opinionated too. I even write in a blog. Does that make me a philosopher? If Noam Chomsky is a 'philosopher' then so is Rush Limbaugh (for all you lefties who assume Chomsky is a philosopher because he's an academic). And hell, what about Howard Stern, he has opinions maybe he's a philosopher too? I think if we're gonna throw the term 'philosopher' around so liberally, we need to assign it to a larger number of people, like say, Taylor Swift or Ozzy Osbourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.253.200 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading Chomsky for years. He is not a philosopher. It should be stricken from the article. It is incorrect. Plain and simple.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you all can provide me with some references to counter the claims my references make (footnotes 2, 3, and 4, for the "American...philosopher" claim), then we can discuss striking it from the article. Until then, it's a thoroughly unproven claim. :) Grunge6910 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

My copy of The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998) [to my knowledge, untainted by undue contact with philosophers] provides this entry : Chomsky (Avram) Noam (b. 1928) US linguist, philosopher, and political activist... That ought to put this question to rest. Pinkville (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oxford probably got that from Wikipedia. The great circle of misinformation.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. But in case there are readers who aren't sure that's a joke, check the publication date of my reference, predating Wikipedia by three years and predating the earliest version of the Noam Chomsky article by almost four years. Pinkville (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. They were buying it. Ha ha. But seriously, can we include 'photographer' in the lead? I hear he has a Hasselblad and is quite the shutterbug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2009

I'm pretty sure he's more an Instamatic kind of guy... Pinkville (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky wouldn't claim to be a philosopher of any kind, first and foremost because his "philosophy" is simply repeated from somewhere else, he has no original ideas - he's an anarchist "fellow traveller". He has done very little work that even comes close to philosophy, except for some pamphlets about human freedom. Read "manufacturing consent" - that's his masterpiece - it's not a philosophy, it's an attempt at social science.

He does talk a lot about moral justifications and morality. That's probably why his fans want to label him as a philosopher. But I don't know if that constitutes philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.43.236 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about political and/or social philosophy. We're talking about cognitive philosophy, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind, fields in which Chomsky is a prominent thinker.136.244.50.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

Right but cognitive philosophy or the philosophy of language are not any more philosophy than achieving a philosophical doctorate. They are both sub-fields of linguistics and cognitive science respectively. They are both technical fields which have no relationship to ordinary philosophy. One has to be careful of equivocation here. If he is a philosopher, he must have or at least have commentary on philosophy. But his only comments are something of the form "post-modernism and similar tortured concepts don't make any kind of sense and should be ignored." Qed (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Qed, what is "ordinary philosophy"?Grunge6910 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

This whole debate is ridiculous. Of course Chomsky is a philosopher, amongst other things. Clearly, Qed, you don't have any knowledge of modern philosophy whatsoever. I'm a graduate in philosophy at Cambridge Uni, and let me tell you, philosophy of language is a branch of philosophy, with relations to linguistics, but certainly not a sub-field of linguistics. It is taught in the philosophy department, not the linguistics department. In fact, philosophy of language was the core of 20th-century philosophy, the fathers of which are usually considered to be Frege and Russell. Moreover, his work is not confined to the philosophy of language; he also writes on the philosophy of mind, in collections of philosophical articles and his own books.

In fact, Chomsky explicitly says that his writings are on philosophy (as well as science). To give just one, unambiguous example amongst many, many others, when discussing the topic of his book 'Language and Problems of Knowledge', he says the context of his (and other people's) study of language is "the tradition of Western philosophy and psychology, which have been concerned with understanding the nature of human beings; and the attempt within contemporary science to approach traditional questions in the light of we now know...about organisms and about the brain." (p.1).131.111.194.10 (talk)J.A. —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

Chomsky may be Jesus to his admirers, a philosopher he is not. Where did Chomsky do any "Philosophy of language"? Of all philosophers only Searle ever took more than passing philosophical notice of him (in the NYRoB, not in mind or logos). Chomsky' s views on Descartes and esp on the history of linguistics have been laughed out of court by linguists and philosopers in Europe when he first hit the scene. Coseriu asked what kind of linguist does not know any languages--Radh (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Only Searle? Are you kidding me? Try Hilary Putnam, WVO Quine, Daniel Dennett, Colin McGinn, Jean Piaget, Jerry Fodor, even Gilles Deleuze. All major contemporary thinkers. And a quick citation search will show that he's been discussed way beyond the NYRB. That's a laughable assertion. As for "where did Chomsky do any 'philosophy of language,'" I suggest you read the rest of this discussion. It's widely established by this point. Grunge6910 (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do--Radh (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am prepared to take back my sweeping assertions and as philosopher is not a trademark, let him be called philosopher, but: what does Davidson say about him? Has Quine ever written a whole article on his work? Also a bit strange to drag an arch-behaviorist like Quine or a funny, but dogmatic materialist like Dennett in on Chomsky' s side of the fence. Deleuze is a joke. I am not saying that Chomsky is not intelligent, or that he does not have a theory of the grammar of english. But to do grammar is not the same as doing Sprachwissenschaft, in the older sense of the word (see Arens, Coseriu, but also Hockett' s criticism of Chomsky, or Hale' s (in a book on Bloomfield if I remember correctly). But I must admit his political visions are more disturbing to me than his theories.--Radh (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well he would deny that his politics has any bearing on his linguistics and thereby on his technical philosophy. Quine has indeed written articles on Chomsky: "Reply to Chomsky" in Words and Objections (1969) (maybe not strictly an article but still instructive at least) and more formally, "Methodological reflections on current linguistic theory" (1970), most famously. I'm not saying the philosophers I listed support Chomsky's positions per se; quite the contrary, as Chomsky readily admits, most philosophy of language is totally opposed to his program. Quine for instance posits in the second article I mentioned that all of the generative program is based on "methodological" flaws. Philosophy of language is primarily externalist; Chomsky's an internalist. Dennett is especially critical of Chomsky's views on evolution; most philosophers who talk about Chomsky are critical of him. Hence he constantly engages with them. (I completely agree Deleuze is a joke; but he has grappled with Chomsky's work in a philosophical setting.) I merely think this is more evidence of the philosophical rigor of his work. I apologize if my reply came across as aggressive by the way. Grunge6910 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am often quiet aggressive myself and I also must say I can' t really deny your point: he has been taken seriously by "true" philosophers and that settles it. Political differences should be no excuse for not taking theoretical thinking seriously (Heidegger may or may not be a mushhead, but his conduct in 34 is another matter). To end on an aggressive note myself (nothing personal against you of course): Does Chomsky hate the USA for saving the Jews in 45?--Radh (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well he is a Jew of European origin; I believe some of his family came to the US before the Holocaust actually. Interestingly he claims WWII is one of the few justified US wars. Grunge6910 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

He is listed as a philosopher in Blackburn's Dictionary of Philosophy which is highly reputable, as well as other similar publications. In wikipedia terms that is a reliable third party source, end of argument --Snowded (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely right. DocteurCosmos (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky in culture?

Shouldn't there be a section of Chomsky in American pop culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear300 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats there been? A passing name drop in Good Will Hunting and...? LamontCranston (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What about when Bart Simpson mentioned his name? And wasn't he referenced in the film "The Matrix"? I thought that I heard him discussed by Charlie Brown in a Peanuts episode. Lestrade (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

No idea about the first. For the second, the Wachowskis are so intent on obscurantist references that maybe theres something there probably linguistic, otherwise maybe you are thinking of the book Simulacra and Simulation that appeared? For the third, I think you might have that confused with a Peanuts strip that someone photoshopped to portray Linus and Lucy discussing Chomsky? LamontCranston (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In Gilmore Girls, Paris hangs a poster of Noam Chomsky in her appartment, and they reference it at least once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.225.110 (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anarchist

Wasn't he influenced by Paul Mattick, who was a Räte-communist, but certainly marxist, not anarchist to the core. Also this anarchist tag does not square with Chomsky singing the praises of arch-Stalinist North vietnam in Hanoi.--Radh (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't happen to recall anything that Chomsky has said about Mattick (unlike his many references to Pannekoek, Rocker, Luxemburg, et al), but Mattick having been an independent Marxist (i.e. not a Bolshevik, etc.) and a member of the IWW, whatever Chomsky's interest in him seems entirely understandable. Wherever you've read that Chomsky sang "the praises of arch-Stalinist North Vietnam", it wasn't in any of Chomsky's writings and it wasn't someone who'd read him. Chomsky - a strong anti-Stalinist from childhood - supported North Vietnam against the overwhelming aggression of the US, sometimes noting the positive potential in some of the political and social developments in North Vietnam. But much more strikingly and voluminously he supported the Vietnamese people in trying to create their own nation. It is with that in mind that he makes a particular point of the fact that the Vietnam War began with the US attacking/bombarding South Vietnam to snuff out the burgeoning progressive independence movement there, only extending their attack to the North after several years of devastation in the south. Regardless, he has never sung the praises of any state; he has paid respect to peoples' struggles and successes in self-determination. Pinkville (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To support North Vietnam in their war against South Vietnam was ideological correct, perhaps even necessary in a sense, but not the attitude of an anarchist. It was fellow-travelling with Stalinist NorthVietnam, nothing very "independent" about it either. Mattick and all the others you name were never anarchists, so why is Chomsky presented in Wikip not as an independent marxist, but hailed as an anarchist?--Radh (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky is widely presented as a (practical) anarchist but has never been presented as a marxist. DocteurCosmos (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But User:Pinkville's list of names looks absolutely correct, so Chomsky in biographies, interview,...presents himself as influenced by independent marxists. Where are the anarchist names? Which of the famous anarchist by the way was a rich well established university lecturer for life?--Radh (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You can be influenced by independant marxists but it doesn't mean that you become a marxist. Lévi-Strauss for example has been influenced by Marx but no one defines him as a marxist.

To assume that an anarchist must be a social outsider to be a true anarchist is a cliché. DocteurCosmos (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article somewhat errs in preferring the term libertarian socialist - which Chomsky has only occasionally used to describe his leanings - over either anarchist or anarco-syndicalist - which terms he has used more frequently. Again, the above speculations are inconsequential. Pinkville (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we have the name of one or two anarchists or even anarcho-syndicalists Chomsky has ever named as his heroes (the council (Räte) communists don't qualify here)?--Radh (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Confederación Nacional del Trabajo's (anonymous) members in the Spanish Civil War for example. DocteurCosmos (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good example. He is also a member of the IWW. But this seems unnecessary. There isn't any reasonable doubt that he is an anarchist, he says so and his writings make that affiliation plain. Pinkville (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He is a member of the new IWW! But I saw his name registred at the famous Amsterdam archives of socialism. He has had contact to some people from the heroic anarchist tradition. Also found a Chomsky statement I like here in the article: he thinks no animals have language. My opinion exactly, it may still take some time to get me converted to Chomskology.--Radh (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just speculating you should really do yourself a favour and read a decent sample of his works, perhaps including his famous essay, "Notes on Anarchism" in the mix. Everyone who has read a decent sampling of his works understands that not only do they draw direct inspiration from famous anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Rudolph Rocker, but also contain significant criticisms of Marxian ideas.BernardL (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm stupid :(

Okay maybe it's just me but the grammar/linguistical section is very hard to understand without prior knowledge of the subject. Perhaps it should be made simpler for the average encyclopedia browser. 130.88.186.26 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, however unlike a number of other sciences - biology, geology, paleontology, the various space related sciences, etc - not a lot of work has been done in bring linguistics down to a 'general science' level. LamontCranston (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

generative power

I'm more asking for this to be looked into. Not thinking it should be one way or another.
"He also established the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power."
It might be said that generative power is not a property of formal languages, but of classes of rule systems (generative grammars). So, I think maybe something in that sentence might get changed eventually. 72.255.48.121 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

There were already discussions (1, 2 on Chomsky being labeled as an American atheist or Jewish atheist). I believe these categories are inaccurate about him. At most he can be categorized as an agnostic. Here is the full quote of his POV about a spiritual existence [2]:

When people ask me, as they sometimes do, 'Are you an atheist?' I can only respond that I can't answer because I don't know what it is they're asking me. When people say, 'Do you believe in God?' what do they mean by it? Do I believe in some spiritual force in the world? In a way, yes. People have thoughts, emotions. If you want to call that a spiritual force, okay. But unless there's some clarification of what we're supposed to believe in or disbelieve in, I can't answer. Does one believe in a single god? Not if you believe in the Old Testament. A lot of it's polytheistic; it becomes monotheistic later on. Take the First Commandment, which presupposes that there are in fact other gods. It says, 'You shall have no other gods before me: Well if there aren't any other gods you can't say that. And, yes, it's coming from a polytheistic period, a period when the god of the Jews was the war god and they were supposed to worship him above all other gods. And he was genocidal, as you'd expect a war god to be.

--Mohsen (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is illogical to assert: "if there aren't any other gods you can't say that." The commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" can very well refer to possible gods, not merely existent gods. Also, there is no evidence that the Jews were polytheistic. Unlike many other religions, they did not have war gods and food gods and weather gods and fertility gods, ad infinitum.Lestrade (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

The paragraph Mohsen has cited as evidence that Chomsky should be categorized as an agnostic seems to better describe him as an ignostic does it not? Ignosticism, of course, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of god and many other theological concepts. This seems like a more appropriate description. Jemoore31688 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing him as an atheist works for practical means; he only contends being considered one because he feels that the concept of spirituality that atheism denies is so vaguely defined. If you read many of the interviews that he has participated in, you quickly notice that Professor Chomsky approaches religion from the pragmatic approach one would expect: considering the devout adherence to spiritual belief as a psychological phenomenon, and, ultimately, delusionsal. --Florida Is Hell (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky is still alive and shouldn't be 'claimed' by the atheist religion unless he is willing to accept that label. His being still alive pretty much says that for such a personal thing, only HE should edit it. Besides, there's all that problem with atheism being a belief system (simple non-belief has its own badge: nonbelief). I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to be classified along with Stalin.

Religious belief

What's his religious belief? Has he said something like "I am a...", something like "I'm a child of enlightenment" isn't a clear reference. Faro0485 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter ? DocteurCosmos (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter, because this is merely an encyclopedia that contains information about noted persons. Why would we want to know anything about those persons? Surely, it is of no interest to mention a person's religious belief. It is enough to know that he is a child of the enlightenment and not a child of romanticism or the progressive era.71.245.114.30 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Faro0485, if you look slightly above, under the header "Atheism", a discussion of his religion is already underway. --Florida Is Hell (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian-socialism Oxymoron

Chomsky is identified as a Libertarian Socialist. This is an oxymoron - can't happen. A Libertarian is one who shaves government down to a bare minimum. A socialist seeks to exert control over all the citizens' lives. TaoLee (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) May 27, 2009

Chomsky is for small government (libertarian), and believes that the workers themselves (not a state or government) should have mastery over production (socialist). It's only an oxymoron if you go with a Leninist definition of socialism. Chomsky denies this definition, and denies that socialism is about replacing the bourgeois with another elite ruling class. He maintains that the central essence of socialism is putting mastery over production in the hands of the producers. There is no contradiction given his definitions. CABlankenship (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's not Chomsky's invention, but a well-established political term. See, for example, the WP article, Libertarian socialism. Pinkville (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well explained in Alison Edgley's paper : "Chomsky's Political Critique: Essentialism and Political Theory", Contemporary Political Theory (2005) 4. DocteurCosmos (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He also explains it here [3]

Likeminas (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Describing a right wing leaning person as a Libertarian is the real oxymoron that many American Libertarians dont seem to realise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.29.240 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This requires defining libertarian as Objectivist or Classic Liberal, and defining Socialist as Leninist. Chomsky, as well as most outside the United States, refute this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

People are still responding to this trolling I see. LamontCranston (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

'A socialist seeks to exert control over all the citizens' lives.' Lul wut. Someone needs to take politics 101. --79.64.234.155 (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)