Talk:Noam Chomsky

Normal and 'Ab'-Normal Sentences

Linguists, who were problematizing the boundary between “normal” well-formed language (Chomskian position) and 'abnormal' speaking/writing following Foucauldian path may question, 'How do we know the differences between 'norm'-al way of speaking and 'ab'-normal way of speaking?' Cartesian Linguistics analyzed the algorithm of so-called 'normal' 'well-formed' sentences only. This very construction of 'natural/normal language' (e.g., the well-constructed written sentences) mercilessly marginalizes the language of so-called non-'natural' madness or folly. How do linguist tribe distinguish between error (khyati) and non-error (akhyati), when they are talking about 'normal' and 'natural' language? Well-formed syntagms are used as examples in the Chomskian syntactic analysis. There was no scope for discursive paradigmatic recurrences.

Chomsky and [Artificial Intelligence]

The one of the problems of Chomsky is that he is involuntarily perceiving creative speaking/hearing subjects’ corporeal as machine. The one of the basic tenets in Chomsky’s discourse, due to its Cartesian inheritance, is to consider human body as a machine, thus Chomskian syntactic enterprise had become a part of the [anatomo-bio-political project] a la [Foucault]. It is a case of minimization, approximation, optimization, appropriation of human body, when Chomsky and his fellowmen (like Lasnik, Berwick) deployed technocratic metaphors (e.g., the terms like “Computation", “array” “interface”, “parser" etc. on the other hand, operations like “COMMAND”, “SATISFY”, “SPELL OUT”. All these operations reflect the metonymic transformation of creative speaking subject as all these functions in uppercase letter made the author remember Schank’s [1975] language-free representations [PROPEL, MOVE, INGEST or CONTROL, PART etc.], which combine primitive conceptual roles and categories.) for explaining a part of cognitive domain, that is a “physical organ”: LAD. These were not metaphors or case of displacement only, but was a case of metonymic condensation of human body as these technical [metaphor]s condense the scope of human (linguistic) potentiality. Does human body follow binary mechanical algorithm only at the moment of speaking? Do humans not have extra-/non-algorithmic cognitive ability? (The point is that Cognitive Domain is not algorithmic only.) The discourse that Chomskians are using is fully algocentric (a discourse that is motivated by meta-mathematical formalism or computational algorithmic simulation guided by the technical rationality, ignoring the non-algorithmic constitutive rules) in its 'nature'. Chomsky as if wants to build up a [Turing Machine] for solving each linguistic problem without solving the halting problem of the machine. Chomsky’s parametric approach is “computer-friendly” as language was now perceived as a network of interlocking principles and parsing as linear steps. A parser would supply, in the same manner of [Searle]’s [Chinese Room Puzzle], “yes/no answers” to the question: “Is this sentence grammatical/acceptable?”. One can switch over from one parameter to another to manage a specific language like a machine (This is a Leibnizian Turn in Chomskian Theory; he is switching over from Cartesian Cogito to [Monad] - Universal of all universals - Monad of all monads - Principle of parameters) In fact, the language is not only governed by either procedural or parametric principles, but there are constitutive non-formal principles. COLOPHON: The author of this 'talk' is thankful to Prof. N. Chomsky as he answered all these questions with patience and promised to drop the term “computation” from the technical vocabulary of syntax as he wrote, “On the use of computers as a metaphor, I actually rare do, and I’ve been pretty explicit in warning that the metaphor isn’t to be taken too seriously. Like any metaphor, if it helps clarify thought and stimulates imagination, fine; if it leads to error, as this one constantly has, then drop it.” (personal correspondence, 13/2/1995).

Atheism

The references claiming Chomsky is an Atheist hold no solid proof or definitive statement from Chomsky, of Chomsky's "atheism" and are only speculative. Chomsky has a deeply Jewish background and upbringing, and would better "fit" as an agnostic, secular Humanist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan81 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 August 2013

This has been discussed repeatedly already. Please read the discussions from January 2007, April 2007, August 2007 and July 2009. The consensus has been that Chomsky is, and should be described as, an atheist. If you have any reliable sources which say something different, feel free to bring them here for discussion, and a possible change of consensus. RolandR (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's not cut that off so abruptly. Look at the last discussion (2009):

• Mohsen: agnostic
• Lestrade: inconclusive, argues that Chmsky's own statements are designed to be disingenuous
• Jemoore: ignostic (a sort of uber-agnostic)
• Florida is Hell: atheist
• anonymous: no belief (agnostic? ignostic?)

No consensus was reached, explicitly or by implication of "votes." The same applies to the earlier discussions. It would seem that if there was a consensus, it leaned away from atheist toward some form of agnosticism. Getting further behind the issue, it can't be in a bios without a strong source. We have two listed, period. Source number 1 in the infobox is the strongest claim, but he plays word games to make it clear that he shrugs off the label. Source #2 is completely irrelevant to the fact it claims to support, it does not show any correlation between Chmosky and atheism. So this discussion should be about whether nay of the slippery sources can be grasped long enough to say "yup, he's an atheist," or whether they elude our grasp in stating a fact. So, do we say he's playing, errrm, linguistic games around a clear atheism, or do we say that he has no clearly defined position?

To claim that "no religion" is the same as "atheism" (which, in itself is a religion) is tantamount to saying newborns are "atheist" - which is not only incorrect but grossly prejudiced.

Remove the "atheist" part and just leave, "Religion: None" -- at least until the STILL LIVING Chomsky clarifies. Xan81 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

To label Chomsky as 'atheist' (a label he himself rejects) is too subjective, and reduces the credibility of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishes dish (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, to apply the label atheist to Chomsky is to apply it objectively, not subjectively. Chomsky's position as articulated in a few places is that unless what "god" means is properly defined, he is not prepared to comment further (or to adopt the atheist label), which is precisely the position that many people who have been happy to accept the label "atheist" have adopted. Chomsky says somewhere in answer to a question about belief in god that he "can't answer the question". That is not (necessarily) an agnostic position. Elsewhere he has been described as "atheist" and not demurred. Read the Wikipedia entry on atheism for assistance. --Dannyno (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dannyno et al - we are not here to apply labels, we are here to quote sources - Noam Chomsky is a living person, let him speak for himself, not be pigeon-holed by random wiki editors.

Personal opinions have no place on wiki pages, and "atheist" is your personal opinion. It is also irrelevant. Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Billy. Leave the field out of the Infobox completely. It's not important. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Where can we insert in the article that Chomsky is Jewish? "Chomsky" is actually a Jewish name, Chomsky had a bar mitzvah when he was 13, he is fluent in Hebrew, lived as a citizen in Israel. He has never claimed to be an atheist and is not a denoted heretic. Teetotaler 1 March, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.129.34 (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions in several places that Chomsky is Jewish. But it does not state, and should not state, that heis religion is Jewish; he has made it clear many times that he has no religious belief, but is reluctant to state whether he is an atheist or an agnostic. He does speak Hebrew (though I do not think he is "fluent"), but has never been a citizen of Israel. RolandR (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any reference in the article to Chomsky making it 'clear many times that he has no religious belief'. Rather, in your pretending that he is either an atheist or is agnostic you are making an error in logic known as the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Probably you are thinking Judaism is like our Christian religion which is maintained by a psychological Justification by Faith. But, I guess I am wasting my time because as we both agree, the article already states that Chomsky's religion is Judaism. Teetotaler 1 March, 2014— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.129.34 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014

No, the article does not state that Chomsky's religion is Judaism; and, if it did, that should be removed immediately. It states that he is Jewish, which is not at all the same thing. Chomsky is absolutely clear that he has no religious belief: "I am a child of the Enlightenment. I think irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and I try to consciously avoid irrational belief"[9]; "At the age of 10 I came to the conclusion that the God I learned about in school didn’t exist... Religion is based on the idea that God is an imbecile. He can’t figure these things out. If that’s what it is, I don’t want anything to do with it"[10] He is, however, reluctant to define himself as an atheist, arguing that the term is without meaning: "When people ask me if I’m an atheist, I have to ask them what they mean. What is it that I’m supposed to not believe in? Until you can answer that question I can’t tell you whether I’m an atheist, and the question doesn’t arise."[11] In this situation, we should most certainly not ascribe any religious belief to him. RolandR (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit block

Why is there a partial edit block on this talk page please? SmokeyTheCat 13:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why was my recent comment in the Atheist section removed? Is this a talk page, or a censor page? I need that to be replaced, or have a good explanation, or we go upstairs and sort this out... Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your "Young Frankenstein" reference was inappropriate. I shouldn't have reverted your actual comment, but they were intertwined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sartorial?

In the section "Increased political activism: 1990–present", it is stated "Chomsky compares the ADL's reports to FBI files, and is sartorial on perceived defamation by the group". I doubt Chomsky made a special effort to dress nicely when speaking on that particular topic and I'm struggling to guess what was meant. Is the original author available to clarify their intent? Gobbag (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good call, that phrase doesn't make much sense at all, so I've gone ahead and removed it. -- Irn (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

In the article is few times mentioned the term "classical liberalism" with a link to this article. But I don't really thing that Chomsky is supporter of "...belief in laissez-faire economic policy...". Change it to the liberalism article?

--Xkomczax (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky & Dictators

I wrote: "Chomsky has been condemned as an apologist for Marxist dictators." The sources I linked to are excellent and they support my statement.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/noam-chomsky-last-totalitarian

Quote: MJT: For a while he denied Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia ever happened. Then when he could no longer deny it had really occurred, he blamed it on the United States instead of the perpetrators. What do you think was initially going on in his head? Was he lying? Was he in denial? How do you explain it?

Benjamin Kerstein: It would take a team of psychiatrists a hundred years to figure all of that out. I can only give you my personal speculations on the subject. I think that, in the beginning, he may have believed that it was all a frame-up by the New York Times and the US-Nazi alliance or whoever else he made up to blame it on. No doubt a great deal of wishful thinking on his part was involved, but it’s possible he was sincere in his conspiracy theories.

Then, as the facts became more difficult to deny and he started looking worse as a result, things got more complicated. At some point, he must have realized that he was saying things that in all likelihood were false. My guess is that he justified it in two ways: First, by relativizing it. Something along the lines of “whatever the Khmer Rouge may have done, it can't be as bad as what America did in Vietnam, or Chile, or Indonesia, etc. Therefore, I am justified in continuing to defend the regime.” Second, by demonizing his opponents, by saying “whatever the Khmer Rouge may have done, it's more important not to allow my opponents to win, because they are evil, and it is morally wrong to allow evil to win.”

Then, when the really horrendous scope of the genocide became clear, he was faced with having to admit he'd been wrong and owning up to it publicly. That is something Chomsky has never done and will never do. Perhaps he has a very fragile ego under all the bluster.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chomsky-peace-award-blasted/story-fn59niix-1226068256064

Quote: "It is a serious joke to give Chomsky any kind of human rights award because of his long-term track record against human rights and in favour of revolutionary killings of opponents," said Australian academic, critic and author Keith Windschuttle.

"Chomsky has a five-decade history of justifying violence in the name of revolution by communist and terrorist organisations," Professor Windschuttle said. "In 1975, Chomsky was the most prestigious and persistent Western apologist for the Pol Pot regime."

So what's the problem? What wording would you prefer? How about: Chomsky has been condemned for defending Communist violence.Jimjilin (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 if you disagree please tell me why my addition is inappropriate. Please give a reason why you object to my sources.Jimjilin (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Chomsky has made statements that are controversial, and lots of people love to hate him (some because they don't understand what Chomsky has written, and some because they have only read a cherry-picked attack on Chomsky's work). However, articles do not feature attacks from light-weight media reports, and certainly not from blogs. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the blog source is WP:SPS. Read that first. The other article does not itself state that Chomsky has been condemned by several people, etc; all it does is quote one man, which means it fails the notability guideline. Finally, go read WP:BLP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism comes from sources familiar with Chomsky's actual record.

Wikipedia says: "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

So I think the World Affairs source is okay.

If you prefer, instead of the World Affairs source I'll use: http://csua.berkeley.edu/~sophal/canon.pdf

Any other objections?Jimjilin (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The World affairs source is not okay, because it is not subject to editorial review. The other source is not saying anything new; see the statement from Nussbaum in the article. Also, you have clearly not read BLP if you are still insisting on using the language you did. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, as I pointed out when you previously attempted to add this smear to the article, not one of the sources you cite "condemns" Chomsky as an "apologist for Marxist dictators". In fact, so far as I can see, none of them even uses the term "Marxist dictator", which appears to be your own interpretation, and therefore impermissible original research. RolandR (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Link: http://csua.berkeley.edu/~sophal/canon.pdf

Quote: So argued the celebrated political activist Noam Chomsky and his sidekick Edward S. Herman in After the Cataclysm, one of the most supportive books of the Khmer revolution (especially since it was written after the end of the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary regime),

How about: "Chomsky has been accused of serving as an apologist for the Pol Pot regime."

That statement mirrors the 2 sources:

http://csua.berkeley.edu/~sophal/canon.pdf

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chomsky-peace-award-blasted/story-fn59niix-1226068256064

Do you have a suggestion as to wording?Jimjilin (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Which source accuses Chomsky of "serving as an apologist for the Pol Pot regime"? RolandR (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chomsky-peace-award-blasted/story-fn59niix-1226068256064

Quote: "It is a serious joke to give Chomsky any kind of human rights award because of his long-term track record against human rights and in favour of revolutionary killings of opponents," said Australian academic, critic and author Keith Windschuttle.

"Chomsky has a five-decade history of justifying violence in the name of revolution by communist and terrorist organisations," Professor Windschuttle said. "In 1975, Chomsky was the most prestigious and persistent Western apologist for the Pol Pot regime."Jimjilin (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Keith Windschuttle caught in Quadrant hoax". We do not need to repeat anything said by Windschuttle. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec):So the best you can come up with is one quote from a right-wing historian whose views were cited several times by Anders Behring Breivik in justification of his murders[12], who was himself allegedly a former supporter of Pol Pot[13][14], and who makes unfounded smears against others while accusing his own critics of "character assassination".[15][16] Sorry, you'll have to do better than that to justify including that smear in the article. RolandR (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed the feeble attempts to smear Windschuttle, employing guilt by association.

If you don't approve of Windschuttle how about:

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/print/735

Quote: He derided refugee accounts of horrors after the fall of Cambodia, pointedly referring to "alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities"

or http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/rothbard.pdf

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/manne.pdf

or http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7686

Quote: While Pol Pot was carrying out his genocide, numerous American leftists functioned as his apologists. Notable among these was the American-hating MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who viewed Pol Pot as a revolutionary hero. When news of the "killing fields" became increasingly publicized, Chomsky’s faith in Pol Pot could not be shaken. He initially tried to minimize the magnitude of Pol Pot’s atrocities (saying that he had killed only "a few thousand people at most").[64] He suggested that the forced expulsion of the population from Phnom Penh was most likely necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. Wrote Chomsky, "the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives."[65] In a 1977 article in The Nation, Chomsky attacked those witnesses and writers who were shedding ever-brighter rays of light on Pol Pot’s holocaust; he accused them of trying to spread anti-communist propaganda. In 1980, when it was indisputable that a huge proportion of Cambodia’s population had died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky again blamed an unfortunate failure of the rice crop rather than systematic genocide. Jimjilin (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1232

Quote: Chomsky was one of the chief deniers of the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s, which took place in the wake of the Communist victory and American withdrawal from Indochina. He directed vitriolic attacks towards the reporters and witnesses who testified to the human catastrophe that was taking place there. Initially, Chomsky tried to minimize the deaths (a “few thousand”) and compared those killed by Pol Pot and his followers to the collaborators who had been executed by resistance movements in Europe at the end of World War II. By 1980, however, it was no longer possible to deny that some 2 million of Cambodia's 7.8 million people had perished at the hands of the Communists. But Professor Chomsky continued to deny the genocide, proposing that the underlying problem may have been a failure of the rice crop.Jimjilin (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculously right-wing POV sources, not even worth looking at seriously. One of them also runs a page called "Jihad watch," for god's sake. What part of WP:RS are you having trouble understanding? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently for you ridiculously right-wing source = any source that criticizes Chomsky. lol The article at present is heavily biased and in violation of Wikipedia standards.

Instead of simply dismissing sources you don't approve of tell me specifically why these sources should be silenced:

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/print/735

http://csua.berkeley.edu/~sophal/canon.pdf

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm#chx

Quote: Rather than expressing concerns about the fate of the Khmer people, Chomsky and Herman seem primarily concerned with the "abuse" directed at the Khmer Rouge regime

Quote: Chomsky and Herman echo the arguments advanced by Hildebrand and Porter, suggesting that, because of unsanitary conditions and food shortages in the city, the evacuation "may actually have saved lives."

How about "Chomsky has been accused of diminishing the crimes of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia." I'll use the three sources just mentioned.

I think you would be well served by reading WP:RS, like we have asked you to several times. You're being remarkably obtuse in not doing so. Find an academic source supporting that statement in particular. Also, have you not read the statement from Nussbaum already in the article? You're not adding anything new here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please offer specifics why these three sources violate WP:RS OK? Try real hard and I bet you'll understand my request.Jimjilin (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Any objections to this source: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1389826305d16Ezra.pdf

Quote: Malcolm Caldwell was not the only one who whitewashed the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. As Sophal Ear commented, along with Caldwell, there was Laura Summers, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, George C. Hildebrand and Gareth Porter,

Quote: Chomsky and others who defended Pol Pot ‘diverted attention and refocused discussion from “how should Khmer Rouge bloodlust best be exposed and protested” to “whether or not the refugee accounts were exaggerated and were the accounts of largely politically motivated propaganda.”’Jimjilin (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you are offering us Michael Ezra as a reliable source. Wikipedia's rules regarding original research, biographies of living people and other areas preclude me from writing all that I know about this person, who I have had the misfortune to meet more than once. Suffice to say that he is a professional propagandist and polemicist, and a defamer who has spread lies about me and about many others. The man has no expertise, no professional standing, and less than no credibility. It would be extremely unwise, as well as in breach of all of Wikipedia's rules, to cite his views on any living person. RolandR (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Appears

Noam Chomsky appears on the site www.masada2000.org