Replies

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.

It can never be wrong because it is circular. Anything can be fixed by just one more transformation.

And therein lies the link between his linguistic approach and his politics.

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.

True enough. But surgery failed pretty badly in the Civil War era. And yet, look what it has become.

Linguistics isn't a hard science yet. Maybe it never will be. It is mostly collecting information. But someday, it may lead to some real science. Give it another fifty years. It does occasionally produce some useful information even now. I suspect as our ability to analyze brain function increases, linguistics will provide more valuable contribuitions to research in related sciences.

Look at how often it takes decades or more than a century for a particular bit of mathematics to become useful. Basic research yields all sorts of benefits though I'd doubt that linguistics is more promising than space research or materials research.