tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post114770904941338543..comments2023-10-21T07:44:20.549-04:00Comments on The Existence Machine: On Science and PoliticsRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-1147776961533118802006-05-16T06:56:00.000-04:002006-05-16T06:56:00.000-04:00Hi, shudder, thanks for reading and for the compli...Hi, shudder, thanks for reading and for the compliments.<BR/><BR/>I would say that, certainly, Chomsky sees his science as not relevant to his political work. And when he takes off his scientist hat, so to speak, he is specifically claiming that his status as a scientist does NOT give him special insight into politics.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-1147749279484465472006-05-15T23:14:00.000-04:002006-05-15T23:14:00.000-04:00I don't know if I buy the analysis that Chomsky's ...I don't know if I buy the analysis that Chomsky's lack of science in his politics is due to any particular refusal to combine the two. I mean, the science that he does has little political import. Thus, he would be in no position to speak as a 'scientist' on anything political! In other words, he would be no different from any other lay person bringing science into political discussion. Which is, of course, not necessarily a problem, but it's different a from a <I>refusal</I>, as such.<BR/><BR/>As for Chomsky and linguistics: obviously, he's been enormously influential on the field. I think not too many people buy <I>everything</I> he says anymore... My experience (as an undergraduate studying linguistics) has been that all of my professors have had big problems with some aspect of his work, whether it be his theory of grammar (now called Minimalism), or some of his underlying claims about what it means to study language. It wouldn't really be an exaggeration, however, to say that much of his work has defined certain areas in the field for some time afterward...<BR/><BR/>If you're interested in linguistics, Pinker's work (that you've already read) is certainly a good place to start. His book <I>Words and Rules</I> is also very clear, with the added advantage that it's a little more right :). I wouldn't recommend delving into Chomsky's more recent writings because they're pretty f–ing hard to read. However, to get a flavour of why he was so influential, you might take a look at Syntactic Structures from 1957, which was instrumental in his overturning of the field. He doesn't really subscribe to the theory that's presented there anymore (although that's understandable), but it is probably a lot more lucidly written than much of his later work.<BR/><BR/>(nice blog, btw!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com