Chomsky wrong on language?
- This topic has 124 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
All very interesting but when it comes to Chomsky's politics and his observations of world events all rather irrelevant as would be Engel's acceptance of phrenology be to his political ideas, i would imagine…or Kropotkin's or Elisee Reclus geographic theories to their anarchism. Both are inspiring to their discpline but are they infallible and not been added to, adapted, amended, corrected?As for Chris Knight, i am sure there are more qualified on the list to comment upon his academic arguments in anthropology and application to his politics, menstrual blood comes to mind …as well as David Graeber's professional authority and writings and the legitimisation of his interpretation of events around the world used to support various groupings. But i may have missed it but i've never read anything by Chomsky linking his linquistic theories with anarchism, Middle East or any other political belief or event. Has he ever said…"i'm a clever fellow because i studied linquistics which makes me qualified to make claims on other matters and these are all based on my study of linquistics"…i don't think he has …perhaps i maybe wrong…a simple citation/source would would convince me otherwise..LBird may think you cannot compartmentalise ideolgies…but if they aren't related, perhaps you can…My views on the skills and performance of football matches are not a reflection of my politics…otherwise i wouldn't watch it…Which brings me to my point…So what if he is wrong in his specialised field?…We challenge his politics…his political interpretations..And on some occasions some of us don't when we find them to be accurate and insightful. Other times he is dismissed by other people because of who he is and not what he wrote or said….
ALB wrote:I don't understand either what military significance either theory has.I think Hud's earlier comment was relevent:
Hud955 wrote:The Pentagon funds him to do research into the supposed underlying universal grammar of language (a kind of human linguistic machine code) because of its potential use in developing computer systems to control American weapons programmes.I think what Hud is getting at, is that if a 'human linguistic machine code' can be found (ie. a physical basis, language as a 'cell' or something), then it can be programmed. This would suggest that a missile could be taught to 'think', and make complex decisions in response to environmental changes, much like a human controller could (ie. abort, change target, return to base, etc.), but obviously without the human element (ie. someone brought up in a society who has the potential to 'stop the war', and has to be paid, fed, etc.).Whereas, if language is relational and social (and constantly changes in meaning), this is much more difficult (impossible?) to program.I think this is what Hud is getting at, but I'd like Hud to clarify, in case I'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick about what he means.PS. computers are good at 'quantity', but very poor at 'quality'; this is related to on/off, binary, all-or-nothing, 0s and 1s, being and consciousness. They are not 'analogue', but 'digital', and don't like thinking about meaning, shades of grey, etc.
https://fringefocus.com/2010/analog-is-not-the-opposite-of-digital/
Quote:…digital simply means concrete values. Any system that utilizes solid values (or digits) is digital…'Meaning' is not 'concrete'. 'Thinking' is not 'solid'.
This worth a read https://libcom.org/history/noam-chomsky-politics-or-science
From alan's link:
Quote:Chomsky promised simplification by reducing language to a mechanical ‘device’ whose design could be precisely specified. Linguistics was no longer to be tarnished by association with ‘unscientific’ disciplines such as anthropology or sociology. Avoiding the obscurities of sociocultural or psychosocial studies, linguistics would be redefined as the study of a ‘natural object’ – the specialised module of the brain which (according to Chomsky) was responsible for speech. Excluding social factors and thereby transcending mere politics and ideology, the reconstructed discipline would at last qualify as a natural science akin to mathematics and physics.We've been here before, comrades.The 'physicalists' and 'materialists' who regard science, maths and physics as 'transcending mere politics and ideology'.Knowledge of a rock is ideological, comrades, and that's why the US military can't get rid of humans, and replace them with computers, which is precisely what Chomsky's line of research suggests is possible.If they can find the physical location of a piece of knowledge, we've had it.But they can't, because knowledge is reliant on language and meaning, and these are social and historical constructs, not 'material objects'.
More:
regarding Chomskys theory, the article wrote:Speech is the natural, autonomous output of a dedicated computational mechanism – the ‘language organ’ – located in a special region of the individual human brain.'Individuals' and 'biology'.When will those suffering from 'ruling class ideas', realise that looking at individuals is not an answer to social questions.Not even if they have 'pointy sticks'.
More:
Quote:It is easy to understand why computer programmers and engineers might find it useful to treat language as a mechanical ‘device’. If, say, the aim were to construct an electronic command-and-control system for military use, then traditional linguistics would clearly be inadequate. Such engineers would need a version of language stripped free of ‘meanings’ in any human emotional or cultural sense, cleansed of politics – and stripped also of poetry, humour or anything else not accessible to a machine.Just to clarify the background, Chris Knight's academic specialism is linguistics. He is the founder of EvoLang, the international conference on the evolution of language, and his knowledge of Chomsky's linguistics is profound. He is also well known to Chomsky in his professional role, partly because he is one of the few people who are willing to challenge him publicly and directly on his linguistic theories. And you are right, Alan. Not only does Chomsky not connect his anarchism and his lingusitics, he has always attempted to erect an impenetrable barrier between the two, both professionally and personally. He claims that the two parts of his personality, linguist and political activiest don't even talk to one another. ‘The one talent that I have which I know many other friends don’t seem to have’ is I’ve got some quirk in my brain which makes it work like separate buffers in a computer." If you start to approach the Chomysky phenomenon in detail, however, and in all its aspects, then it should start to raise some interesting questions in your mind. I'm not suggesting that there is any kind of conspiracy going on, but something in the nature of a fortuitous conjunction of circumstances which have had interesting consequences. I do think the background facts of Chomsky's linguistics have a bearing on his politics and on the nature and direction of his influence in the world – not the linguistics themselves but their institutional setting. I don't see this exactly the way Chris does, but a lot of my thinking is nevertheless informed by privileged information I gained while subbing his book. As that is still in the early stages of publication, I think it would be unfair of me to speak about it openly now. Once it is out, you can read it for yourself, and I'd be more than happy to discuss it.Sorry, LB I'd like to chat to you about this and clarify, but for the reasons just stated I feel a little constrained at present. Maybe you would like to look at Chomsky's early attack on BF Skinner's theory of operant conditioning and place it in its world-political context, and in particular in the means used to control public opinion in the USA and USSR. (It was actually Chomksy that more or less took down Skinner single handedly. Unfortunately, it was also Chomsky that gave the initial impetus to the Tooby and Cosmides school of idealist Evolutionary Psychology. You can't have everything!
) Hud955 wrote:Not only does Chomsky not connect his anarchism and his lingusitics, he has always attempted to erect an impenetrable barrier between the two, both professionally and personally. He claims that the two parts of his personality, linguist and political activiest don't even talk to one another.Isn't this separation between politics and science precisely what other comrades are doing on this site, every time I ask 'What ideology do you use to do science?'.When I ask what ideology does an anthropologist/psychologist/physicist use, that has been linked to by comrades, not only can no-one tell me their own ideology, but they can't tell me the academic's ideology, either.Chomsky's method of 'impenetrable barrier erection' is an unspoken element of the method of all who claim that science is not ideological, and merely deals with 'the real world'.Chomsky's ideological belief that "the one talent that I have which I know many other friends don’t seem to have’ is I’ve got some quirk in my brain which makes it work like separate buffers in a computer" is essentially that same belief of all who consider themselves 'individuals', and not ongoing products of society.This is a central ideological belief of academia, which is why they are opposed to democracy in knowledge production, because they truly believe that they have some special insight into truth that is not available to the rest of the proletariat, and thus open to a democratic vote.To be opposed to democratic knowledge production is to think oneself to be a 'separate buffer in a society'.
Hud955 wrote:Sorry, LB I'd like to chat to you about this and clarify, but for the reasons just stated I feel a little constrained at present.I've only just seen this addition to your post, Hud, and we've cross-posted.No problem – the issues that I've raised are pertinent to anyone who considers themself a socialist, so perhaps others can answer my question.That is: Is Chomsky an inadvertent model for this site?
LBird wrote:More:regarding Chomskys theory, the article wrote:Speech is the natural, autonomous output of a dedicated computational mechanism – the ‘language organ’ – located in a special region of the individual human brain.'Individuals' and 'biology'.
It is this biological determinism that was why I was waiting for someone to refute him. A bit suspicious of Chris Knight though, as isn't he a bit of one too (ex-SWP, expelled I think, but in their argument I thought Chris Harman came off best)?
ALB wrote:It is this biological determinism that was why I was waiting for someone to refute him.Well, since I regard 'biological determinism' to be a subset of 'materialism', and I've been 'refuting' that for 18 months here, I regard criticism of Chomsky to be criticism of materialism.It's for the other comrades reading this thread, who can see the problems with Chomsky, 'biological individuals' as a focus for research into social issues, and where it potentially leads (comfort for the US military and the bourgeoisie), to reconcile their criticism of him with their professed acceptance of Chomsky's science.
I meant someone from his own field of linguistics on the basis of their research and theorising in this field or, if you prtefer, theorising, research and theorising again
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.