"...an impenetrable mystery..." - Clog I guess I don't see how one can easily compare Noam with those who deal with Mind and/or body. To me, this would be like comparing what Rachael Ray says about philosophy with Socrates.
Read him or not…I find him a breath of fresh air and a great one to rip out the roots of dogma…at least in Mind. On Nov 26, 6:53 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - I was trying to be brief as usual. I don't accept "knee > jerk reaction." I have seen many references to Chomsky from those I > respect, and they all point to the view that he has anti - > evolutionary leanings particularly in regard to the mind and language. > I have seen it espoused (Dennett) that his view on the mind is that it > is an impenetrable mystery which will never be solved. I believe that > science will solve the "mystery" of the mind and this type of > statement discourages me from reading more of his work. > > On Nov 25, 6:45 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > "... have read very little of Chomsky - I was put off by his view > > that ..." - Clog > > > While I understand such knee jerk reactions, unless you are studying > > his linguistic books, this shouldn't be an issue for you. > > > On Nov 25, 12:05 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - I too have read very little of Chomsky - I was put off by > > > his view that language is not influenced by natural selection. He > > > advances the theory that language is a physical attribute rather than > > > a biological. As a lover of memes, genes and evolution, I find that > > > hard to swallow. > > > > On Nov 25, 12:10 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > ornamentalmind, > > > > > I think that my major criticism of Noam Chomsky is his lack of > > > > scientific thinking especially making predictions or controlling > > > > organisms. Most of what I've read are historical interpretations of > > > > established facts and descriptions of something that has already > > > > happened. He definitely has his facts in order. However, Noam seldom > > > > attempts to make specific predictions of societal drifts that could be > > > > verified--or at least he is not any better at predicting than other > > > > historical experts. In addition, many of his followers do not > > > > challenge what he says and most of what he says is said in such a way > > > > that makes it hard to challenge (or test). Framing has been studied > > > > extensively and the master of framing is Noam Chomsky himself. > > > > > A particular (this is just one) criticism is that he wrote a review of > > > > B.F. Skinner's "Verbal Behavior" (link below) and presented arguments > > > > against Skinner that Skinner never claimed. I included Noam's case > > > > against Skinner and a response by a behaviorist. Chomsky also accused > > > > Skinner of advancing totalitarianism (much the same as Noam--directly > > > > or indirectly--is accusing Obama). Yes, Skinner does advocate a > > > > science of the behavior of organisms, which would embrace, explore, > > > > refine and advance a scientific discipline to predict and control > > > > organisms with scientific precision (including humans). That is what > > > > Chomsky seems to fear (as do others including Skinner). The concept > > > > of "freedom" or "free will" or the idea that humans are above the laws > > > > of nature and therefore immune to scientific prediction and control is > > > > a Western religion and Chomsky is sort of the Priest. At the end of > > > > Skinner's "Science and Human Behavior," Skinner warned people that one > > > > why to defend against the abuses of a science of human behavior is for > > > > the masses to learn about how that science works and those scientific > > > > techniques employed. Politicans and government have been working on a > > > > science of human behavior for years (akin to Asimov's psycho- > > > > history). The problem with Skinner is his ideal that such a > > > > discipline should be transparent and open to the public and entire > > > > scientific community. > > > > > By the way, Chomsky (from the little I've read) is a fun read, and > > > > he's a linguistic master. > > > > > A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1959) by Noam Chomsky > > > > >http://cogprints.org/1148/0/chomsky.htm > > > > > On Chomsky’s Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (Journal of the > > > > Experimental Analysis of Behavior, volume 13, pages 83–99) > > > > >http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/abstracts/jeababstracts/13/%2013-083... > > > > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
