Replies

Chomsky is basically theory of computability applied to linguistics. Take a compiler course, or read about typographical number theory, and it's the same thing.

Chomsky contribution was a basis of rigor in an unrigorous field. Even if his theoretical framework is wrong, he can hardly be accused of a soft-headed PC approach to his field.

I took his graduate seminar as an undergrad, and I can confirm that if I didn't know who Chomsky was, I would have had no idea about his politics based on the content of the seminar.

I have also read one of his political books, which was as rambling and self-indulgent as his seminar was focused. If he had been obsessed with, say, vitamin C, he would be just another genius with a cranky streak.

Chomsky contribution was a basis of rigor in an unrigorous field. Even if his theoretical framework is wrong, he can hardly be accused of a soft-headed PC approach to his field.

Sure he can. Applying an inappropriate and counterproductive paradigm to human language stifles both linguistics and computer science. If you think an analysis of human language that ignores connotation and emotion is actually a study of language, then something's wrong.

Chomshy's linguistics is like Bible Code or the game of casting out nines. It can never be wrong because it is circular. Anything can be fixed by just one more transformation.

Problem is, it sheds absolutely no light on the physical implementation of the mind. It predicts nothing, adds nothing to our understanding.