Is Noam Chomsky a good source?

[PixyMisa]

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.

The citation was already supplied. The original text, and Chomsky's distortion of it. Chomsky lied.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Which is wrong. We're talking about natural selection of economic systems. The biggest profit (over the long term) is the measure of fitness.

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.

That's not true either. An individual tragedy of the commons won't "crash" capitalism. We've already seen this.

If wealth is too concentrated at the top, the bulk of the population would not have a survival advantage, for example.

Says who?

And it has led historically to annihilation of the top as well.

In a capitalist economy? When, exactly?

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

When does it not?

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.

Except that this is not what happens. Research into new antibiotics continues apace.

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.

Except that, again, this is not what happens. We do get better drugs. Not consistently, not guaranteed, but research is funny like that.

There are many other examples where capitalist market forces do not produce the best outcome.

To say that there are "other" examples is to suggest that you had already provided examples.

That's why I say people shouldn't make rigid absolutism claims that either a socialist or a capitalist economic system is better.

Economically, capitalism is always better.

Neither is absolutely better. We should look at products and services individually and use the evidence to determine the proper mix of systems.

Well then. Capitalism is always better.

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.

Yeah, sure. There's the DMV, and the VA, and... No, wait...

 

[Praktik]

Wow. Talk about damning with faint praise!

I can see the dust jacket of his next book:

lol

I guess the point sailed over your head. And this might sound strange coming from a debunker, but my point was that its important to read even dyed-in-the-wool crazies like Icke and Jones, they are wrong UNBELIEVABLY more than they are right (MUCH MORE than Chomsky) but even they touch on real issues like national sovereignty in a changing world of macro-regional governance, and issues of personal freedom in a changed security environment. And they offer a window into the perspectives of the many who follow them.

I read them. I even read idiots like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes. I read Chomsky - and think the value of his insights rise far above the other names I've listed here. And even if you consider Chomsky in the same light I consider Pat Buchanan, or Alex Jones - there is value in reading perspectives with which you disagree.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I don't see how Daniel pipes is an idiot.

First off, he stumped howard Zinn in a debate.

http://hnn.us/articles/1025.html

Then he tears the October Surprise myth to shreds.

http://hnn.us/articles/4249.html

 

[oldhat]

Beck is a younger version of Chomsky.

Both are irrelevant and charlatans.

Comparing Glenn Beck to Chomsky is laughable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which is wrong. We're talking about natural selection of economic systems. The biggest profit (over the long term) is the measure of fitness.

Last time I checked, gold didn't reproduce.

While profits certainly contribute to the ability to reproduce, they are merely a means to an end and as such profits are a secondary but not a primary measure of success.

It's akin to measuring number of germs killed. The real desired outcome is amount of disease prevented. Sometimes killing germs leads to disease prevention, but not always. And as such, number of germs killed is not the optimal measurement of success. Disease prevention is.

With profits, they are like killing germs. Sometimes the most profitable system does not lead to the best outcome for human beings. Human outcome is the best measure, not the indirect measurement of profits.

That's not true either. An individual tragedy of the commons won't "crash" capitalism. We've already seen this.

An 'individual' tragedy? Apparently you don't know the story. Overgrazing leads to everyone's cows dying, not just the individual who added the first extra cow.

Says who?

In a capitalist economy? When, exactly?

I am referring to peasant revolts which have occurred against the aristocracy over and over in recorded history.

When does it not?

What do you do here, reply before you read the answer to your question? Read the post before you waste my time.

Except that this is not what happens. Research into new antibiotics continues apace.

Right. And guess who funds that research? The government! Without public funds the drug companies would be unwilling to tie up their capital in R&D that only promised long term return.

BTW, we needed new antibiotics years ago. Only now that drug resistant strains have become pandemic are we seeing any new drugs developed. The market is here now. But lots of people have died of untreatable infections in the meantime. And the few new antibiotics that are out of the gate have had major side effect risks so far.

Except that, again, this is not what happens. We do get better drugs. Not consistently, not guaranteed, but research is funny like that.

You don't know much about this field, do you? Have you ever looked into just how much public money goes into drug company R&D so the public need is met?

... Provide some sources supporting your above claims that market forces are driving ALL new drug innovation. There's a lot of money going into many new drugs that there is no current solution to and a huge market awaits: weight loss, anti-aging, Alzheimer's, cancer treatment, some vaccines...

That's why I said a mix is called for. But without public dollars, the outcome of pharmaceutical R&D would be optimum for drug companies, but not optimum for the human species.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't see how Daniel pipes is an idiot.

First off, he stumped howard Zinn in a debate.

http://hnn.us/articles/1025.html

Then he tears the October Surprise myth to shreds.

http://hnn.us/articles/4249.html

I read the transcript in the first link, and I find your impression of it differs from mine. Pipes rehashes the BS belief that America can do no wrong and anyone who dares find fault with the actions of the US is a bad person. It's the idealistic John Wayne version of America. Zinn's version seems a lot more realistic than idealistic to me.

I'll comment on the second one when I have the time to bother with it.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Wait a minute, Zinn is realistic? He believes in the "Mirror Universe" version of history, with every action undertaken by the US supposedly for profit, regardless of the facts.

He also brought praise for Maoist China.

As well as that, he has proven to be a very unreliable source.

Zinn Is not a good historian, but a good polemicist.

Notice how he shifts the topic from Iraq to Southeast Asia/Latin America to healthcare.

 

[PixyMisa]

lol

I guess the point sailed over your head. And this might sound strange coming from a debunker, but my point was that its important to read even dyed-in-the-wool crazies like Icke and Jones

No it isn't.

I read them. I even read idiots like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes. I read Chomsky - and think the value of his insights rise far above the other names I've listed here. And even if you consider Chomsky in the same light I consider Pat Buchanan, or Alex Jones - there is value in reading perspectives with which you disagree.

If they are informed perspectives, yes. This does not apply to David Icke or Alex Jones or Pat Buchanan - or Chomsky.

 

[PixyMisa]

Last time I checked, gold didn't reproduce.

Non-sequitur.

While profits certainly contribute to the ability to reproduce, they are merely a means to an end and as such profits are a secondary but not a primary measure of success.

Non-sequitur.

It's akin to measuring number of germs killed. The real desired outcome is amount of disease prevented. Sometimes killing germs leads to disease prevention, but not always. And as such, number of germs killed is not the optimal measurement of success. Disease prevention is.

Red herring.

With profits, they are like killing germs. Sometimes the most profitable system does not lead to the best outcome for human beings. Human outcome is the best measure, not the indirect measurement of profits.

Red herring.

An 'individual' tragedy? Apparently you don't know the story. Overgrazing leads to everyone's cows dying, not just the individual who added the first extra cow.

Yes. This is true. It is also irrelevant. If you overgraze a particular area, you run out of food, and have to sell of your livestock, possibly at a loss, and wait for the land to recover. This is clearly not sound policy, though it's sometimes hard to avoid. Overfishing is a prime example today.

But it does not crash the system. We've been through numerous tragedies of the commons of varying kinds and on varying scales, and the economy survived all of them.

I am referring to peasant revolts which have occurred against the aristocracy over and over in recorded history.

Okay. Nothing to do with capitalism, then, so another red herring.

What do you do here, reply before you read the answer to your question? Read the post before you waste my time.

You said "capitalism does not always produce innovation".

This is false. Capitalism does always produce innovation.

Right. And guess who funds that research? The government!

Some drug research is government-funded. Some isn't. Do you have details showing that all research into new anti-biotics is exclusively government-funded in all countries?

Without public funds the drug companies would be unwilling to tie up their capital in R&D that only promised long term return.

Long-term return is better than no-return.

BTW, we needed new antibiotics years ago. Only now that drug resistant strains have become pandemic are we seeing any new drugs developed. The market is here now. But lots of people have died of untreatable infections in the meantime. And the few new antibiotics that are out of the gate have had major side effect risks so far.

Perhaps that's why these new antibiotics weren't released earlier?

You don't know much about this field, do you? Have you ever looked into just how much public money goes into drug company R&D so the public need is met?

Do you?

... Provide some sources supporting your above claims that market forces are driving ALL new drug innovation.

Provide some sources supporting your above claim that I ever said that.

There's a lot of money going into many new drugs that there is no current solution to and a huge market awaits: weight loss, anti-aging, Alzheimer's, cancer treatment, some vaccines...

Yes? And?

That's why I said a mix is called for. But without public dollars, the outcome of pharmaceutical R&D would be optimum for drug companies, but not optimum for the human species.

You mean they'd be run like every other field of human endeavour?

 

[PixyMisa]

Comparing Glenn Beck to Chomsky is laughable.

Why?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why?

Their relative degrees of intelligence and education are miles apart.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Non-sequitur.


Non-sequitur.


Red herring.


Red herring.


Yes. This is true. It is also irrelevant. If you overgraze a particular area, you run out of food, and have to sell of your livestock, possibly at a loss, and wait for the land to recover. This is clearly not sound policy, though it's sometimes hard to avoid. Overfishing is a prime example today.

But it does not crash the system. We've been through numerous tragedies of the commons of varying kinds and on varying scales, and the economy survived all of them.


Okay. Nothing to do with capitalism, then, so another red herring.


You said "capitalism does not always produce innovation".

This is false. Capitalism does always produce innovation.


Some drug research is government-funded. Some isn't. Do you have details showing that all research into new anti-biotics is exclusively government-funded in all countries?


Long-term return is better than no-return.


Perhaps that's why these new antibiotics weren't released earlier?


Do you?


Provide some sources supporting your above claim that I ever said that.


Yes? And?


You mean they'd be run like every other field of human endeavour?

You've dismissed comments rather than discuss them. I don't have time to waste on such a discussion.

 

[Marc39]

Their relative degrees of intelligence and education are miles apart.

In Chomsky's chosen field of linguistics. Otherwise, he's a loon.
Beck, at least, figured out a way to get rich being one.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

In Chomsky's chosen field of linguistics. Otherwise, he's a loon.
Beck, at least, figured out a way to get rich being one.

What? You don't think that Chomsky is rich? Surely he's sold a hell of a lot of books over the past 40 years.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In Chomsky's chosen field of linguistics. Otherwise, he's a loon.
Beck, at least, figured out a way to get rich being one.

As has been noted here with supporting citations, Chomsky pays meticulous attention to facts. It's his conclusions people take issue with. Beck doesn't know the difference between fact and fiction and his conclusions suck as well.

 

[gtc]

As has been noted here with supporting citations, Chomsky pays meticulous attention to facts. It's his conclusions people take issue with.

Is this like his 'fact' that Jews control 98% of America? Or his 'fact' that the US invaded Lebanon in 2006? Was he paying meticulous attention to the facts when he made those claims?

References to where he claimed those 'facts' to be true were provided on the first page of this thread by me but you have seemed to overlook them.

Even if you want to argue that he is just using rhetorical flourishes when he says that the US invaded Lebanon in 2006 or that Jews control the US you still have the problem that he claimed:

- the US-Israeli invasion, according to the (accurate) perception of 90 per cent of Lebanese.

You will notice he provides not a skerrick of evidence to support his claim that 90% of the Lebanese believe that it was a US-Israeli invasion. And what is more, even if 90% of Lebanese people believe something that doesn't mean it is true.

In these two examples he is recklessly disregarding logic and the truth to make ideologically motivated claims. That is, obviously, not unique but it does show that it is wrong to claim that he has a great regard for the facts.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

As has been noted here with supporting citations, Chomsky pays meticulous attention to facts. It's his conclusions people take issue with. Beck doesn't know the difference between fact and fiction and his conclusions suck as well.

Excuse me, Chomsky is guilty of more intellectually dishonesty than RJ Rummel and Ward Churchill combined. Srebrenica, Darfur, Faurisson etc.

His citations usualy return to his earlier writings

 

[Marc39]

What? You don't think that Chomsky is rich? Surely he's sold a hell of a lot of books over the past 40 years.

Chomsky had wealthy parents, however, unless he has sold millions of books, then, he hasn't made much money off them.

 

[Jono]

I recommend people email Chomsky and ask him about these matters personally. I generally try to do that, when possible, if I find myself with enough curiosity and/or ample interest to hear it from the horse's mouth as it is.
Also, in my experience Chomsky gladly replies to emails, within reason.