A twat-gatekeeper mumbles...Fortunately the clip is less than five minutes long, as exposure to an intellect such as Chomsky’s for any longer would render the viewer blind and mute, possibly permanently.
As one adoring commentator put it
Superb. Again shows himself to be a real thought leader and truly unique intellect. If he speaks we should listen.
My favourite part of the clip is where he explains that ignoring information that doesn’t fit in with your preferred explanation for an event is the correct, scientific way to go about things.
Oh no, on second thoughts, maybe my favourite bit is the part where he concludes
And even if it were true (a 9/11 conspiracy), which is extremely unlikely, who cares?
That’s pretty good too
I am the proud owner of three of Chomsky’s most popular books and have never managed to reach anywhere like halfway through any of them. If I were younger and less self-confident I would be inclined to believe that the fault was mine and that I was incapable of keeping up with a genius’ train of thought. But I’m not, so I’m inclined to believe that it’s actually Chomsky’s fault because he really is a lousy communicator who really is full of crap...
9 comments:
Well said Stef, I think if Norm really posed any threat to the PTB he wouldn't get so much publicity.
Anyway, just dropped by to wish you and yours a very Happy New Year.
I look forward to reading more of your blindingly funny & insightful posts in 2007.
Bridget
Stef,
I have never managed myself to finish a book by Chomsky. However, I watched a documentary on him made by two Canadians which exposes his theory on manufacturing consent in democracies. I think this is the only coherent theory about Politics he has ever managed to formulate in a clear way or were the two filmmakers really brilliant people ? Anyway, his theory on manufacturing consent would answer his comment on the conspiracy in 9/11 in a contradictory way because if we take from facts only what fit our theories about things and that our theories are manufactured under a tacit connivence between media and governments, then this would explain why some of us think of conspiracy theories and why conspiracy theories are important because they are the only way of thinking outside the box. Thinking outside the box is even needed in science but Chomsky never practised experimental inductive science.
I think he has one valid point, that every observation we make can lead to different possible conclusions.
But his reasoning that we should discard the other conclusions is just wrong.
And if you are afraid of Chomsky's intelectual powers, you should check out the godfather of fearmongering on CNN Showbiz.
"Chomsky never practised experimental inductive science"
Are you truly ignorant of his work in linguistics? The man whatever you think of his politics is the einstein
of his field.( Of course one could always claim that language and the brain are inherently non scientific subjects)
Your misunderstanding of Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda model also lends
little to bolstering your claims.
I haven't studied Chomsky's work on linguistics so I can't pretend to know if he goes about it in a scientific way or not
but I have read a lot of his political material, including his Propaganda Model, and it would certainly be hard to describe that as scientific - certainly if you're a Popper fan, as I am.
I'd argue that the clip I linked to in the main post is a disgraceful example of pisspoor reasoning and dissonance on Chomsky's part - whether there was a 9/11 conspiracy or not.
All ye buggers don't not one thing about that great men Chomsky. Yes sir, not one thing. He is regarded, yes sir, as the greatest intellectual in the world, yes sir. But ye buggers can't read his stuff, and ye think he's a fool.
LOL.
The mighty Howard Zinn, another hero of mine) shocked the pants off me one day, when fielding questions from the audience also said that who did 9-11 was irrelevant.
Thats the only thing he's ever said that got my goat up. And boy was it a big goat!!! Chomsky and Zinn are good buddies (and probably a similiar age). Chomsky's alright, but people who drool on his every word cum mumble (LOL) {wonder what linguistics make of it} annoy me.
Chomsky I feel did well in the Vietnam era, he's perhaps stagnated slightly since then. Well the dude is pretty old.
Gatekeeping is a difficult thing to ascertain.
Ascertaining if someone is the greatest intellectual in the world is also a difficult thing to ascertain
and if there were a sweepstake beforehand I'd be well fucked off if I drew Norm
Post a Comment