Is Noam Chomsky a good source?

[Pardalis]

Chomsky has a regular day job?

Bashing America is very lucrative business, just ask Michael Moore and Naomi Klein.

 

[Marc39]

Bashing America is very lucrative business, just ask Michael Moore and Naomi Klein.

Michael Moore, yes, given the success of his films. I'd be surprised if Chomsky made much money off his books. It's only fairly recently that Hugo Chavez became his literary agent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For economic systems, they are equivalent.

So are you claiming that people would evolve toward capitalist economic systems because they would provide a survival advantage?

Because a purely laissez faire capitalist society would have poorer outcome as a group, than a society with a mixed economy which applied a more ideal economy for each of the society's needs.

Well, there's one thing we know: It's never going to be communism, unless you classify "crushing poverty" and "mass starvation" as products or services.

And no one claimed it was, in this thread anyway. Are you building straw men here?

 

[whatnot]

Chomsky v. Barrett

...Kevin Barrett posted a longish email thread between himself and Chomsky a while back, it's a pisser. Sadly, it's MIA in the wake of Barrett's abortive run for elected office.

I found a link to the email thread mentioned above. But as a newbie, I can't post links. If anyone wants it, pls email me for the link. It's super entertaining.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's clear that Chomsky is distorting the facts when he quoted Norris. It's not an error, it's obviously deliberate.

Early on in this thread, people made allegations about Chomsky's supposed factual errors while Chomsky sources have refuted those claims.

Yet the accusations continue. Why should I continue to fact check every allegation after checking several only to find the allegations false? I don't have all the time in the world.


Cite a specific fact, not opinion of Chomsky's and a give us a specific citation refuting that quoted Chomsky fact.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I found a link to the email thread mentioned above. But as a newbie, I can't post links. If anyone wants it, pls email me for the link. It's super entertaining.

Just type out the link with a few spaces.
Welcome to the forum.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I agree, though you're drawing a broader point than I was. Specifically in terms of economic efficiency, capitalism will always beat socialism, and in large economies (a million people or more) the difference becomes enormous. There's no "evolutionary path" from capitalism to socialism, because socialism is less well adapted to survive.

That doesn't necessarily mean that in all respects capitalism is the best way to deliver all goods and services; it's sometimes impractical (or has been, historically) or prone to specific failures (e.g. tragedy of the commons, positive feedback cycles, perverse incentives). Mind you, most of those flaws can be found in socialism too - just not always in the same circumstances, which is why leavening capitalism with a little socialism does seem to work pretty well.

[OT]I don't know about that. The one good idea I think Marx had was his view that the economic systems were dependent upon the bases of the economy, the means of production. If I were to jump in a time machine, I don't think I could institute capitalism going back even five hundred years. For most of human history, I would say, capitalism was not the efficient route. Unless we want to play loose with our definitions.[/OT]

Chomsky is of course a good source, for Chomsky's direct arguments. But sources are no good if they are left alone.

(I personally think he engages in intellectual masturbation and only crafts impotent notions)

 

[Marc39]

Early on in this thread, people made allegations about Chomsky's supposed factual errors while Chomsky sources have refuted those claims.

Yet the accusations continue. Why should I continue to fact check every allegation after checking several only to find the allegations false? I don't have all the time in the world.


Cite a specific fact, not opinion of Chomsky's and a give us a specific citation refuting that quoted Chomsky fact.

If Chomsky weren't a crackpot and a screwball, he would have been plastered all over the media, from the NY Times to the Washington Post to Meet The Press. He would be testifying before Congress.

Instead, in his 40+ years, not once has Chomsky been taken seriously as a self-proclaimed authority on domestic and foreign affairs. Not once.

He's a farce.

 

[Meed]

It's clear that Chomsky is distorting the facts when he quoted Norris. It's not an error, it's obviously deliberate.

Yet you've still failed to even try to make your case.

 

[Praktik]

Had this on the backburner last night.

So what if Chomsky got a few things wrong, or *gasp* even let his bias direct him towards certain conclusions. He's a human being. Show me someone claiming to have found a perfect source and I'll show you someone who's delusional.

Seems to me that people who disagree with Chomsky's opposition to US foreign policy, Israeli policy and critiques of capitalism like to latch on a few things which they then use to turn their brains off and pretty much disregard everything chomsky says.

I like to consider other points of view. I own more than a few Pat Buchanan books, I subscribe to The American Conservative and I tool around NRO and other conservative sources with whom I disagree rather vehemently. But Pat's somewhat covert white nationalism doesn't mean that he's off his rocker when advocating for a humbler foreign policy. His social conservatism doesn't mean that when describing American society, he's always going to get it wrong.

We should be adult enough to realize that all human beings are fallible, biased and have outlooks that differ from ours. There's a difference between someone like Chomsky, and say Alex Jones or David Icke. There's not too much those two say that's worth listening to but even I would be uncomfortable with suggesting that 100% of what they say is wrong (maybe like, 90%.. hehe).

Chomsky's hit/miss ratio is still much better than theirs, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of using the times he's messed up to disregard absolutely everything he says. Sure, maybe he should have thought twice before writing that forward to the holocaust book given the fact many would not understand the free speech motive for doing so - but does that mean that all his writings on US policy in SE Asia are wrong? Even if there's a technical argument over the chronology of atrocities in Cambodia - does that mean his work on the American bombing campaign there is entirely without merit?

We should be able to read him, cognizant of his bias, and still find the places where even with his bias, he hits the mark.

Its kind of fun actually, to read people you disagree with and find out: "Well geez, Buchanan actually hit that on the head." And I think doing so contributes to a healthy intellectual development that is able to consider a wider array of viewpoints fairly, without resorting to describing those you disagree with as complete dimwits or so hopelessly biased that nothing they ever say has any value. Doing that - I think - is a recipe for intellectual stagnation.

 

[Meed]

Had this on the backburner last night.

So what if Chomsky got a few things wrong, or *gasp* even let his bias direct him towards certain conclusions. He's a human being. Show me someone claiming to have found a perfect source and I'll show you someone who's delusional.

Yes, true. Additionally, there is a big difference between being wrong in speculation, opinion, or interpretation and claiming facts that are clearly not true. I've never heard a legitimate criticism of Chomsky as a source other than him:

A) Getting something wrong and correcting it quickly
B) Misinterpreting a situation while it was happening and the information was limited, but not persisting in that interpretation once the facts were more evident.

I'm actually glad this thread came up, because I'm reading a Chomsky book at the moment and the weakness of the arguments (or lack thereof) by his critics here reinforces my confidence in being able to trust the information contained.

 

[Meed]

I was citing articles by people who specialise in the history of the former yugoslavia.

I was citing War Crimes Prosecutor Marko Atilla Hoare.

I've wasted enough time on your links in this thread, which have included long-winded blog posts and an article that contradicts its own charges (leading me to assume you didn't even read it). If you've got a point to make, make it yourself or at very least quote the relevant portions, say what you think their significance is specifically and then provide a link to the source that the information came from.

I was making the point that chomsky is an unreliable source on the former yugoslavia.

No you weren't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If Chomsky weren't a crackpot and a screwball, he would have been plastered all over the media, from the NY Times to the Washington Post to Meet The Press. He would be testifying before Congress.

Instead, in his 40+ years, not once has Chomsky been taken seriously as a self-proclaimed authority on domestic and foreign affairs. Not once.

He's a farce.

So by this standard, Glenn Beck is a respected authority on ... er.. uh... hmmm, not sure what to say there.


Chomsky's views certainly became well know somehow.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Seems to me that people who disagree with Chomsky's opposition to US foreign policy, Israeli policy and critiques of capitalism like to latch on a few things which they then use to turn their brains off and pretty much disregard everything chomsky says.....

That's my assessment as well.

 

[lightfire22000]

This absolutism argument can easily be challenged. We are a gregarious species. We clearly evolved with altruism and cooperation traits benefiting the group.

Since "we clearly evolved with altruism and cooperation", and since morality appears to continue it's evolution today in what Dawkins termed a "shifting moral zeitgeist", doesn't it make sense to have more capitalism since people can naturally be altruistic. I think you're making the false assumption that Capitalism is always self-centered and Socialism/Communism is inherent altruistic. People can choose to be altruistic and help others.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

To the OP - all that needs to be said about Chomsky's political writing:

He provides truly copious endnotes. Check them out, and decide for yourself whether his viewpoints are valid. Whether you find his sources to be BS or the fountain of wisdom, the point is that he provides them for you to look at. In great profusion.

One could contrast this with the behaviour of a lot of other political writers all over the political spectrum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since "we clearly evolved with altruism and cooperation", and since morality appears to continue it's evolution today in what Dawkins termed a "shifting moral zeitgeist", doesn't it make sense to have more capitalism since people can naturally be altruistic.

I've certainly not said everyone is greedy or, that a capitalist cannot be philanthropic.

I think you're making the false assumption that Capitalism is always self-centered and Socialism/Communism is inherent altruistic. People can choose to be altruistic and help others.

Well you think wrong because I don't make that assumption at all.

First, what I said was natural selection would favor the best economic system as measured by the well being of the individual, not as measured by the biggest profit.

While it would seem profit and well being would naturally be the same, there are many cases where that isn't the case. Nothing in capitalism would stop the tragedy of the commons, for example, until the system crashed.

If wealth is too concentrated at the top, the bulk of the population would not have a survival advantage, for example. And it has led historically to annihilation of the top as well.

But let's look just at innovation. I think most innovation would correlate with better survival outcome. But capitalism does not always produce innovation.

I've used the following example many times but it demonstrates the problem well. We need new antibiotics. But when new antibiotics come on the market, they are prescribed very conservatively to save them for the most drug resistant infections. If we used them excessively, antibiotic resistance to the new drug would quickly develop.

A drug company wouldn't want to tie up their capital in R&D for new antibiotics until the need was great, because the return on the investment wouldn't occur until there was a great need for the new drug. That means there is an incentive to let drug resistant infections multiply first before tying up the capital for a long term gain.

Drug companies do however, have an incentive to make copy cat drugs for which there is a proven market. But we don't get better drugs. We might get better marketed drugs, but typically one doesn't need to produce a better Viagra. One merely needs to produce an equivalent Viagra and market it effectively. Billions of R&D dollars are wasted to produce copy cat drugs with proven markets.


There are many other examples where capitalist market forces do not produce the best outcome. That's why I say people shouldn't make rigid absolutism claims that either a socialist or a capitalist economic system is better. Neither is absolutely better. We should look at products and services individually and use the evidence to determine the proper mix of systems.

While the Republics are trying to make 'socialism' a bad word, it is ignorant to buy that claim. Look at how many well run public services we have in capitalist America.

 

[Gregoire]

Had this on the backburner last night.


I like to consider other points of view. I own more than a few Pat Buchanan books, I subscribe to The American Conservative and I tool around NRO and other conservative sources with whom I disagree rather vehemently. But Pat's somewhat covert white nationalism doesn't mean that he's off his rocker when advocating for a humbler foreign policy. His social conservatism doesn't mean that when describing American society, he's always going to get it wrong.........


Its kind of fun actually, to read people you disagree with and find out: "Well geez, Buchanan actually hit that on the head." And I think doing so contributes to a healthy intellectual development that is able to consider a wider array of viewpoints fairly, without resorting to describing those you disagree with as complete dimwits or so hopelessly biased that nothing they ever say has any value. Doing that - I think - is a recipe for intellectual stagnation.

Exactly!

This is, after all, a skeptics forum. How can we know we are "right" if we don't continually expose ourselves to other points of view?

 

[Marc39]

So by this standard, Glenn Beck is a respected authority on ... er.. uh... hmmm, not sure what to say there.


Chomsky's views certainly became well know somehow.

Beck is a younger version of Chomsky.

Both are irrelevant and charlatans.

 

[PixyMisa]

There's a difference between someone like Chomsky, and say Alex Jones or David Icke. ... Chomsky's hit/miss ratio is still much better than theirs...

Wow. Talk about damning with faint praise!

I can see the dust jacket of his next book:

Less insane than David Icke.
-- The Boston Daily Sun Herald Gazette

Has a better hit/miss ratio than Alex Jones.
-- The New York Post Review of Books

Not quite as mad as a box of frogs.
-- Washington Post-Times-Times-Post