Talk:Noam Chomsky

Lock this article

This is one which will definitely be attacked if it is not Locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

The argument against Chomsky being included in the American libertarians category is his identification as a libertarian socialist. Chomsky also refers to himself specifically as a socialist. Should he therefore not be included in the American socialists category? Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. He is a libertarian and a socialist. He identifies categorically as a libertarian, in his highly important writings on the anarchist and socialist origins on its meaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USOAkQWGVY Sir Richardson (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But he talks about American Libertarianism as an "aberration." DocteurCosmos (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he does. As I've said, libertarianism isn't only defined by its American homogenization. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky has of course written at length on the subject. He is just as much of a libertarian as he is an anarchist. If someone is an American and defines themselves as a libertarian, then they should be included in the category. The opposition to him being included based upon that general aberration is completely irrelevant and unencylopedic. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible additions and corrections Discussion please

Apparently he has assets worth 2 million dollars. I've heard people say that "he has 2 mill yet he has guts to call himself a socialist". That's from uncyclopedia, actually. Should this fact be researched and included? Because the article on Ralph Nader has such details. Am not trying to slander, just saying that a fact like this would play a role in forming an opinion of him.

He has said in an interview that "science simplifies everything and is totally inadequate for human affairs." Should the fact be included under " Opinion on cultural criticism of science"? http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060301.htm)

I further think several other stuff in this article are, for the want of a better word, half-truths. I got the Chomsky bug last year, and read a coupla political works. I would feel obliged if somebody joined me in some discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the net worth is irrelevant to the main article, as including it would treat him as a public figure in a way he is not. The criticism based on this claim is already here.

You can go ahead and add the view of science, although I have been debating with myself whether that section should be here at all.

As for the half truths… what are you referring to? Allformweek (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't substantiate the half-truth comment, but i just "felt" somethings were not right. I'll point out in due time.

Why hasn't the controversy on his views about the srebrenica massacres not mentioned? Also his views on the recent supreme court ruling on campaign finance? Geez, this article needs an update. I'm going to reread chomsky.info and add some stuff in the following days. Any stuff on this guy needs a "Featured" quality. Iceman87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

Rather than zeroing in on Srebenica, why not the whole Yugoslav war, particularly the NATO bombings (which is what he has most written about). On the other hand, I don't feel a great compulsion myself to add content based on every event he's comment on... Surely his policy analysis, since it's consistent and deep, is what's most significant, rather than any one of the examples on which he brings it to bear... Pinkville (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, i changed my mind on Srebrenica too, that's why you don't see an edit. I hold that his views on the Supreme court are important; they are a commentary on judiciary, democratic processes, legalism etc. But one line is too thin. I'm trying to pull some more stuff he might have said on those topics.Iceman87 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So what can we do to improve the quality of this article? It currently has a b- right? Does the reader get a snapshot of what he wants to know about Chomsky's political opinions? What about the stuff on kibbutz, for example? Is that so relevant? Instead of having quotes in the middle of articles, we have articles amidst quotes. I propose to trim some. (Not an easy job, this guy never wastes words, yet manages to talk at length). Iceman87 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between editing and vandalism? If I chop off a section, like the stuff on kibbutz, for example, how will it be viewed? Iceman87 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I'm just repeating the stuff under Milestones. Sorry. Didn't check.Iceman87 (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that Israel's recent refusal to allow Chomsky entry is included; but no mention of when Israel had previously admitted him. I think it should include the phrase, "...although he has visited Israel in the past." 173.76.221.237 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the paragraph about Chomsky's experience on a kibbutz: What is "in which parents and children lived in rooms of separate houses together" supposed to mean exactly? Perhaps the families lived in a Cubist neighborhood.67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.151.136 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this say anything?

Many of the more basic principles of this theory (though not necessarily the stronger claims made by the principles and parameters approach described above) are now generally accepted in some circles.

This is unsourced; but, more importantly, does it say anything? "Some basic parts of the theory are generally accepted by some people"; is there any theory more respectable than Time Cube of which this is not true? And if not, should we state the vacuousness? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the "view of science" section

I think this section either needs to be deleted or turned into a nice, neat summary of the Chomskian view of science. Allformweek (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be s shortened, and conglomerated into a different section or deleted.

he makes grandiose statments about scientific philosphy that are not consistent with the goals, methods, and successes in the PHYSICAL sciences (which includes mathematics, engineering, and medicine among the other obvious disciplines).

He fails to make the necessary distinctions, which are obvious even from a non scientist's perspective (I am a chemist). This failure to recognizes such obvious and basic differences is pretty naive.

I wonder if those quotes were taken out of context (I know that discussions of science vs social science may sound like a fine distinction, but it is not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the quotes are pretty much totally out of context. I am curious though what grandiose statements you think he makes and necessary distinctions you think he misses. Allformweek (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. DocteurCosmos (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken link

The link from reference 64, "An Epistemological Reading of the Debate between Quine and Chomsky", is broken. So if anyone knows of any other references, those could be worth adding. --N-k (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)