Martin hainan
- 2016-02-27
I am in agreement on your observations and regret the failure of my subject verb agreement.
common-or-garden
- 2016-02-27
I reply merely because I apparently started this diatribe by mentioning Chomsky, not because
postings recommending "www.realclearscience.com" and Bangor University
professors is worthy of remark.
Just to say 'is' should be replaced by 'are' in your post. Let's do our best in future not to give anti-China readers of this forum ammo to shoot us down, whether we are mere FTs like me, or foreign experts like you! Most of us, unqualified on paper or not, teaching illegally or not, do a damn good job, even in the boondocks. Don't let the side down!
BinderDundat
- 2016-02-27
there is much debate about how new discoveries act to undermine some of his theories. Welcome to science.
But its you who is getting the welcome to science from me.
Welcome to science where we don't point to the 1970s theories since debunked, discredited or if we want to be polite we can say 'have since been undermined' or for that matter were once the best we had but have been superseded and many times over.
Welcome to academia.
martin hainan
- 2016-02-27
I reply merely because I apparently started this diatribe by mentioning Chomsky, not because postings recommending "www.realclearscience.com" and Bangor University professors is worthy of remark.
There continues to be much academic debate about all modern 'cognitive neurosciences', understandably so and thankfully so.
There is no debate about Chomsky's contribution to the field of linguistics; there is much debate about how new discoveries act to undermine some of his theories. Welcome to science.
We don't fault Freud for being 'wrong' as cognitive science has evolved to transform psychology, nor should we.
Attacks on Chomsky linguistics are akin to attacks on Marx's economics. The passion of the attacks are indicative of the political nature of the individuals, not their academic contributions, not the academic qualifications of the impassioned self-identified 'debunkers'.
BinderDundat
- 2016-02-26
He made some important contributions to Theoretical Linguistics that have a long-standing impact on the work of others.
Nope, he was wrong about nearly everything.
He was so wrong and has been so debunked that people have even started calling his work a 'Hoax'. Now, I would not go that far but that's to give you an idea how bad is the work you are damaging other countries with. You should stop doing that.
http://www.realclearscience.com/2014/12/09/noam_chomsky_is_completely_wrong_262308.html
And i mean that article is being kind when it says "completely wrong" because you will find dozens and dozens of articles explaining why Chomsky has been wrong about nearly everything, did crappy work in many cases, was even 'unethical' in other cases.
the only reason people think he did something worthwhile is because it became popular for phoney scholars, wannabe intellectuals and the pseudo-smart to just 'name drop Chomsky'. It sounds 'smart' in the 1980s to do that. Its not. Its dumb. He was bad at his job.