Comments on: Noam Chomsky and the Little Green Men

By: John Williamson

John Williamson — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:34:29 +0000

Thanks, Jon, for your comments on the Chomsky normal form. Unfortunately, what you may be leaving out is that these computer-based approaches to the analysis of language never worked out in showing how languages work. Thus, Chomsky never actually accomplished what he set out to do as he wrongly assumed that languages work in the programmatical way that computers do. They don’t.

– John Williamson

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:22:16 +0000

“name one lasting fact the weed league troll chomsky has presented the world?”

OK.

Chomsky’s work on languages has greatly influenced the study of computer science. The Chomsky Normal Form is based on the Chomsky Heirarchy and “many proofs in the field of languages and computability make use of the Chomsky normal form”. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_normal_form ]

Languages, or a set of accepting/rejecting rules operating on a set of defined symbols (…which is exactly how computers operate, and why this is so important to computer science), that can be written in this form are context-free and are provably computable by a universal turing machine.

And Turing Machines “are extremely basic symbol-manipulating devices which — despite their simplicity — can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer that could possibly be constructed.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine]

So if we can pose a decision problem as a Chomsky Normal form language, we prove that the problem is computable by modern computers. Very. Very. Important.

By: gene

gene — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:16:31 +0000

What is real scary is that Madam Hillary is a big follower. Or was until it was discovered by others.

By: G of Sedona

G of Sedona — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:05:19 +0000

Gee,Chomsky can see in language which nobody else can; and voila!, that makes him an expert in foreign relations, too! Amazing. Simply amazing.

By: John Williamson

John Williamson — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:28:49 +0000

Thanks, Shadroui. Yes, if any others go to my blog The Anti-Chomskyan Redoubt and if you go to my “Articles Published on FrontPageMag” you will see a number of articles attacking Chomsky’s linguistics theories. Thanks.

By: brandon

brandon — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:51:57 +0000

Chump-sky is the worlds most verbose “educated” huckster the looney university system has ever produced. His achievements are far and wide, take for example the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power.
Chomsky has stated that he continues to reside in the United States because he believes it remains the greatest country in the world
“evaluating countries is senseless and I would never put things in those terms, but that some of America’s advances, particularly in the area of free speech, that have been achieved by centuries of popular struggle, are to be admired.’

I guess like most leftists they like the free speech part, only with the guarantees of free speech can they spout their mouths, free speech is of course only free speech when it agrees with their ideology, all other speech is hate speech and should be censured.

This is the only real achievement Mr. Chimp-sky has done

Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who according to some researchers learned 125 signs in ASL, was named after Noam Chomsky.

Now if only the followers of Chompsky could learn as well as Nim.

By: shadroui

shadroui — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:34:26 +0000

Max, while I think John’s column is terribly funny, search Dissecting Chomsky on this site. It is a more turgid attempt to dissect Chomsky’s views in detail. Unfortunately, it probably won’t do much good. I have found Chomsky fans resistant to any crticical critique, no matter how nuanced or detailed.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:03:10 +0000

Dean, why not address the actual arguments presented by Chomsky? For example you could try refuting manufacturing consent or perhaps Chomsky’s argument about America’s ‘imperial ambitions.’ Or maybe asking a conservative to do this is too tall an order? I see this a lot. It’s easier for conservatives to beat up a straw than the real man (in this case Chomsky). Max is refering to the adhominem fallacy committed by the author of the original author.

By: Dean

Dean — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:38:03 +0000

Max, name one lasting fact the weed league troll chomsky has presented the world?

By: Max Godwin

Max Godwin — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:29:13 +0000

Ignore the facts, attack the man, that’s the conservative way isn’t it? Gee you guys must be really desperate.

Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar revolutionized the study of linguistics and much besides. Like Einstein, or Carl Jung, or many other great scientific talents of the 20th century, Chomsky’s work in cognitive linguistics has been widely accepted in the scientific community and forms the basis of a whole new direction in his field.

In other words, just like Einstein in physics, the study of linguistics would be very different today had Noam Chomsky not been around. Just like popular music wouldn’t be the same without the Beatles, or South Africa would be a different place today had Nelson Mandela not steered it away from being a blood bath and towards reconciliation. All of these people changed the world for the better in ways it would be hard for any rational person to truly dispute.

Chomsky became the respected intellect he is today via strong, verifiable science and rigorous academic discipline, and you guys hate him for it. You ‘intellectual’ conservatives. It really is a conservative fantasy that Chomsky just disappear into the ether, isn’t it? The more political nails he hits on the head the more you cowardly right-wingers just want him to go away. In fact why don’t you all just try holding your breath until Noam Chomsky becomes irrelevant?

It is because you can’t attack his facts you feel compelled to attack the man, his record and his irrevocable achievements.

Tell me, what have any of you done lately, except vote for a moron?