What a load of shit Fetzer; you know the debate amongst Chomsky, Skinner, Quine, Pinker, Piaget, Lakoff, Putnam, Fodor and all their supporters and detracters have been raging for DECADES ON END; there is no "censorship".
Your ideas on syntax are self-contradictory and cannot be seen in reality; all known grammars follow the same very basic rules of structure, and that children know them independently of direct experience. They simply cannot arise without distinct variations, which have [con]
never been seen. I can only assume the paper of your colleagues was as poorly argued as you are here, probably taking the same aggressive tone you did in that journal of Synthese you edited (remember how disgusted everyone was?).
Oh yes, and as for Paula Gloria insinuating Chomsky, a Jewish son of a Hebrew scholar, is a Nazi because he believes in genetics: fuck you you ignorant cunt! Even Fetzer turned his nose up at your rambly bullshit. "That's really fascinating" Fucking clueless twat...
His deep lack of understanding regarding linguistic concepts in general and universal grammar in particular is baffling.
"If there really were innate syntax it ought to be pretty simple to figure out what it is since everyone uses it." I was really surprised when I heard this. For this man, discovering the nature of mankind in its integrity is no difficult task, since innate things that everybody has/uses are simple to figure out. I bet he has a shelf just for his Nobel prizes.
Well, abandoning a dying paradigm can challenge the weakminded. For openers, try PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2nd edition (1996). For more advanced students, try THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005), where I am more direct in critiquing the views of Chomsky, Fodor, Pinker and such. Let me know if you need some tutoring. From your comments, it sounds to me as though you may need a lot.
With regards to linguistics/cognitive science or whatever, this guy has no familiarity with the literature on the topic he is discussing. He's not even asking the right questions. He's framing the debate in a completely idiotic way. First of all, a lot of the stuff he argues is already in the literature, its just ppl have more empirical evidence to back it up (i.e. languages besides English and more than just collocations of two words), and thus develop more sophisticated views on the topic.
Chomsky is becoming more of a joke every day. He pretends to be an anarcho-libertarian but he loves big government and loves saying the UN should control the US. Totally pathetic. Anarcho-libertarians, minarchists, and palaeoconservatives correctly grant Chumpsky no quarter. Furthermore, Foucault was far more intelligent than Chomsky.
@paulagloria As I said, Chomsky claims to be an anarcho-libertarian but in his actions and the totality of his works, he tends to call for UN intervention in the US to restrict US power--this is the sign of a lover of Big Government. His attacks align with the socialist-leftist-liberal-big government-nanny state side of the paradigm if you wish to attempt to classify it. He hates traditional minarchist libertarians who call for a free market that is without government interventions.
@RepublicConstitution yes indeed the UN is a huge problem in regards to real science on cannabis. You can't get in the UN "club" without fu*king your country by banning cannabis - thus the trouble in Egypt came months ago when they violated and swarmed into the age old hashish cafes - the real criminals are those disallowing through Unconstitutional "laws" freedom of thought, action and choice.
Oh my God, I cannot believe this guy actually believes his own drivel. Garage doors opening? This is hilarious. The government account is complete and utter rubbish. Right. So we don't buy into this BS because of cognitive dissonance? This guy is still convinced that several of the hijackers are still alive. But he cannot find them. Kevin Barrett tried, but couldn't either. And now he is going to deconstruct Chomsky?
@bman342 do you believe that hijackers took down the WTC by flying an airplane into them and causing the stunning destruction vs weapons that do that kind of damage vs delicate machines that carry people through the air?
@paulagloria please don't patronize or insult our intelligence with idiotic questions like this. There is ZERO proof of controlled demolition. All there is is specious speculations re melting points, maximum combustion temps, etc. As if there's a laboratory somewhere where we've been testing flying fully-fueled passenger jets at peak speeds into 110-story office towers of the same construct as the WTCs. BTW, people have been hijacking plans for decades armed with far less than boxcutters.
16:20, According to whom are media control by corporate interests and government abuse of power *intermediate* issues while singular events such as JFK's assassination and 9/11 *the* most important? I guess according to conspiracy theorists like this silly man. 17:53, Had JFK lived, the things that Feltzer spouts would not have happened. Abolish the CIA and Fed? Come on!
14:06, While it's understandable that the interviewer is ignorant on the subject, it was never Chomsky's goal to "find the innate syntax," but to examine the principles of mind/brain evolution, development, and function that give syntax the properties it has and not others. Starting at 14:33, the fraud is clearly not familiar with the literature. NOBODY says that the mind appeared suddenly with syntax. He needs to read more, particularly Pinker, Hauser, Marcus, Fitch, and Piattelli-Palmarini.
13:38, I've never seen a strawman quite like this: "Since it is ridiculous to countenance that early humans could conceptualize today's technology, it is also ridiculous to imagine that the capacity to build technology is innate." In no way, shape, or form is this what Chomsky and other so-called nativists think. Rather, they would say that the ability to manipulate tools is innate and technological knowledge is spread through cultural evolution.
12:03, Here, Fetzer gives a ridiculous nonsequitur, "If there is innate syntax, it should be trivial to characterize it since everyone has it." I guess all of cognitive science and human neuroscience should be easy since it's about *us*, right? Does he really mean that any science that studies human nature should be easy? How could a so-called philosopher not understand such a ludicrous logical fallacy?
Let's look at another nugget of nonsense. The "semantical capacity" to acquire language is a completely incoherent phrase, just as "syntactical capacity" is meaningless. We do know that infants have *something* that enables them to attend to certain properties of signals and not others, which allows them to build up a structure, and it is *this* capacity that needs explaining. And to the interviewer, Chomsky does not state that humans are predisposed to speak a particular language (11:22).
It's difficult to believe that this windbag had an appointment at a major university. He completely misunderstands Chomsky's linguistics, shamelessly spouts conspiratorial nonsense, and erects strawmen that could be blown down by an 80-year old with emphysema. For one, Chomsky does not say that syntax is innate, but rather than we can understand why language has the structure it does by considering basic biological principles of efficient computation. That's just for starters.
@Francise05 Thanks for your excellent remarks and for the chuckles. Really...this idiot should spend less time shoveling Fritos and more time educating himself. Of course, his low average to average IQ cannot be changed...
13:36 HAHAHA such a fucking nonsequitor. He's totally misreading what all these authors are saying. Pinker and Jackendoff have written directly about evolution (Language 2002).
"if words have meaning" is a condescending statement.. I ask you is the study of linguists about language that relays truth or is truth created along the way with the most powerful creator the winner?
The words "I call shenanigans" is indicative of the winner marking his territory . . . I would take it as encouragement that you have attracted the attention of the surveillance operatives . . . someone sees you as a threat as you continue to foster thought?
Its not a condescending statement, its a statement which implies that if you say something like "Malthusianism is the basis of Darwin's justification of the survival of the fittest" you have to explain what you mean by malthusianism and basis. Even if it made sense its such a vague and pithy statement thats it weighs nothing. Like saying "Language is (or is not) innate"-Its just meaningless rhetoric.
look I am frustrated too by the 500 or less character thing and that a platform for deep penetrating and shared consideration is difficult. When I read the first chapters of "Progress and Poverty" and realized that MANY intellectuals of the day of Henry George understood these concepts it makes me sad we have only internet ego battles pushing a point that takes time to develop.
Have you heard of sanscrit "name and form" - the right intonation produces the form.
If there is an innate, genetic, inborn, species-specific syntax (as Chomsky posits) or semantics (as Fodor asserts), then every human is endowed from birth with the same dispositions for grammar and vocabulary. Different words in various languages refer to concepts that every human shares and mistranslations should be impossible. There is no place for evolution in either scheme of things, because it is complete from scratch. So why has Chomsky had so much trouble establishing its properties?
errrg.... I'm not even a Chomskyan linguist but I think you ought to actually read his books in order to critisize generative grammar appropriately. Chomsky and other linguists have some trouble establishing the properties of UG because the topic is complex. Science isn't easy. Nongenerative linguists deal with complex empirical phenomena cross-linguistically that isn't automatically solved by saying that semantic concepts combine together.
There is no question as to whether or not the human mind is like a computer or not (it obviously isn't). Any one who believes that compositional semantics is ALL you need to build up linguistic systems has never looked at any other languages before. Explain to me why languages that have fixed word order take agreement obligatorily in many languages. Don't just tell me that syntax is an epiphenomena because concepts combine with each other. That explains nothing. Read a grammar stupid!
The more I listen to the more I'm pissed off. Profound issues like JFK? A mass murder and war criminal who got what he deserved. Who gives a damn who killed him, let's focus on his many crimes.
and god damn it syntax has nothing to do with 'thoughts and concepts'. Does he even know what syntax means? He should be using the phrase 'innate grammar'. Just listen to a sentence there's your syntax. Look at this left parenthesis:
who are these wackos? I agree there's some strange stuff with the wellstone case but energy pulse weapons? what is the evidence: some 'unexplained' configuration of the plane's electrical system and 'a series of circumstantial evidence'. Maybe they should listen to that Chomsky interview on 9/11 (EVEN in controlled scientific experiments there is unexplained phenomenon).
My favourite is
weird guy: I have an expert on electrical magnetism working with me...
Wow, I respect that you'd actually reply to my comments. I'd like to retract a few things: the fluzie comment is inaccurate, sexist, and inappropriate (my apologies). Also re the JFK comment: no one deserves to be murdered.
But a lot of this video is nonsense, particularly the discussion of linguistics.
AND most importantly Noam Chomsky is tackling far more important issues than a bunch of dubious conspiracies.
And sorry for flooding your video, but one more thing:
I don't understand why all the 'truthers' focus on such ridiculous things as controlled demolitions. If the govt was behind 911 wouldn't 4 simultaneous jet fuel bomb suicide attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon, and (had it been successful) the Capital be enough?
Actually there are many aspects of 9/11 that are rarely covered such as Mohammed Atta's (and at least one other hijacker's) singed passport turning up on the streets of NY.
lacked the need, or had never thought of it (agriculture is a very complex idea to think up, even for a whole race of hunter-gatherers, when you've never done it before). If humans had just so happened to shift from primarily hunter-gatherer, to primarily farming societies five-thousand years earlier, we'd probably have created jet propulsion )or its intellectual equivalent) about, say, five thousand years ago.
you've heard of it. For human culture, we have the advent of agriculture as the primest mover in our social and cultural evolution. It took modern humans tens of thousands of years to become farmers, not because they lacked the capacity to do so, but because they either
species called homo sapiens sapiens, how long we've been around doesn't matter that much to this argument, but let's say forty to sixty thousand years. None of the members of this species can be referred to as primitive man, as every members belongs to a group described as "modern humans." Innate syntax doesn't exactly mean jet propulsion, as Fatzer implies, but let's just say the two do have a direct correspondence.
I'm not only a student of Linguistics, but also Human Evolution, so it seems I may be able to shed some light on Fetzer lack of understanding of both fields:
"Whether they're primitive, early humans or late humans, which means, by implication, that even primitive man had to have the conceptual resources for jet propulsion, color television, polio vaccine..."
After all, they've only spent six or so years in grad school and for some of them, many years since, studying Chomsky's work intensely. I'm sure you've thought it through more thoroughly.
The bit about the ball has nothing to do with syntax.
The interviewer need not quit her day job, or she needs to get one if she doesn't have one. Chomsky's theories do not contribute to racism or Nazism, as she implies.
"Most of those who are enthusiastic supporters of Chomsky in relation to his work in linguistics, in my opinion, simply haven't thought this matter through."
Absurd. The most important supporters of Chomsky's theories about syntax are distinguished syntacticians who hold PhDs in what now? Oh yes, linguistics. I am quite sure, as Fetzer puts it, they only believe him because they haven't "thought this through."
I like Fetzer and think he's a smart guy and love his political work
BUT
the part about innate syntax implying jet propulsion, color tv, etc seems to scream to me that he doesn't really understand what meta-syntax is lol
but in addition, Chomsky has never said that his theoretical syntax existed for all time.. in fact he specifically said it may have emerged in an isolated breeding group... never ever has said that it was always there lol
I'm curious to know what your alternative theory to innate syntax (universal grammar) would be. Whether you disagree with the details of generative grammar or not, I don't see how anyone could accept the notion that there is no innate human ability to construct sentences either on a syntactic or semantic level.
Don't I mention the work of Thomas Schonemann and William Wong? We have the capacity--strictly speaking, predisposition--to acquire syntax among our genetic attributes. The question is which comes first: syntax (as Chomsky suggests) or semantics (as Schonemann and Wong propose), where syntax is an emergent property of semantic complexity. I published their paper in MINDS AND MACHINES and discuss these issues in THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE and in PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2nd ed.
What I find sad about this is that Fetzer doesn't really cite any of the literature that might support his thesis see Anderson 2009 in the latest edition of Language, for a review of some of the ontological issues facing linguists. Currently I am taking a course in my linguistics department called Emergent Grammar, which essentially argues Fetzer's thesis, but we actually read the literature in linguistics, instead of talking about how much we hate Chomsky.
trinitymike has replied to your comment: "Chomsky is so revered that any criticism, no matter how well-founded, is viewed as heresy by his mindless followers."
Were you high when you wrote this, Fetzer??? Anti-Chomskyan critique is well rep-resented in the literature; even Chomsky himself has recanted and been realistic about the applicability of his earlier work...tell the whole truth or feck off back to moo u.
No. It was based on the responses found on this thread. Please elaborate a bit.
You were responding to me when I stated that Schonemann's ideas weren't new; you were trying to make the misguided and totally incoherent argument that his article didn't get published because the editors of linguistics journals are all obsequious followers of Chomsky. I then pointed this out, and you responded that you were a prestigious professor and you knew it was a good article.
For example, he says that "the" is associated with its noun because of semantics. Which is true, and this is represented in DP structure in the current minimalist framework. But there are clear restrictions on the articles distributions, which can be accounted for in interesting ways by the syntactic component of the grammar. He doesn't talk about this, in fact he cites no literature on the topic.
The "FETZER ON CHOMSKY" video to which this one is described as a "response" is only 7:15 and, unlike this one, actually shows Chomsky making the claims about JFK and 9/11 that I find rationally irresponsible, given the evidence, and morally objectionable, because they mislead the public about one of the most important events in American history. If anyone wants to learn more about JFK, then try ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).
It's a brilliant paper, based on his dissertation, which came out in 1999 after a year circulating to the linguistic journals. It should have been accepted. I say more about Chomsky in AI: ITS SCOPE AND LIMITS (1990), PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2nd ed. (1996), and COMPUTERS AND COGNITiON (2001). I discuss Chomsky on JFK in AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004). On 9/11, visit Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a society I founded in 2005, or try my chapter on JFK and 9/11 in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007).
The paper should not have been accepted, because its just a (rather poor) review of some ideas in Cognitive Linguistics. I'll certainly look at your stuff when I have more time. Its not really a brillaint paper, most of the stuff he talks about have been discussed by Linguists, for the past 20-30 years, and (unlike the work he cites as supporting his view) he demonstrates that he just doesn't understand the generative syntax.
Right! That's why William Wong collaborated with him and he earned his Ph.D. at Berkeley! They give away lots of Ph.D.s for stuff that has "been discussed by linguists for the past 20-30 years". Really! Give this a rest. You are making yourself look just the least bit ridiculous. I have done plenty of editing of scholarly journals and this is an exceptional paper. I hope others will take a look and give this paper serious thought. I doubt most linguists have an equal understanding today.
Okay, look I totally agree with you on everything, as long as when you say "linguists" you really mean just Noam Chomsky. If I am making myself look so silly why are you responding to me, Mr. distinguished professor who spends his time on youtube watching videos of himself and arguing with some undergrad student in Linguistics. Some of the LINGUISTS (see emphasis!) Schoenemann cites are professors in my faculty. So ha!
Furthermore, the idea that syntax can be built up from semantical analyses, (if thats even Fetzer's idea) was NOT invented by Fetzer. This idea is from Construction Grammar. Its not even clear what exactly Fetzer means when he talks about "syntax", it seems to serve the purpose of attacking Chomsky, but he doesn't talk about what syntax means for linguist's in general or any of Chomsk'y specific ideas, even in his mystical written work.
Did you actually watch the interview? Don't I attribute the view that syntax is an emergent property of semantic complexity to Tom Schoenemann, whose first paper on this subject I had the honor to publish as the editor of MINDS AND MACHINES 9/3 (1999) after the linguistics journals would not touch it? Chomsky is so revered that any criticism, no matter how well-founded, is viewed as heresy by his mindless followers. See THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005) and THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2005).
Well you refer to "your" research into "concepts", so I assume you are affiliated. I will, however, read the article by Schoeneman. It should be pointed out that the idea, and explicit modeling of syntax being emergent from semantics is an idea in vogue in about half of the linguistics facultys around North America and Europe, in Construction Grammar, Cognitive Grammar ect... Just because one article concerning this topic was not accepted does not mean that the idea is NOT ALLOWED in some way
With respect to Chomsky's "mindless followers", YES he has some, by they are minority at least in Linguistics.If you tried to publish an article in Linguistic Inquiry which is practically dedicated to Chomskyan(-like) linguistics it would probably not get published. The comment about evolution that "Linguists haven't thought this through" is extremely silly, the literature, written by linguists (in concert with biologists) on the evolution of language is quite vast. But thank you for responding.
Okay, if you check out Shoenemann's sources (the ones he approves of), you will find authors that ARE linguists and who do get published in main stream linguistics journal's (cf. Langacker, Hopper, Haiman), just search their names. Linguistics journals recieve hundreds of entries every month, and (the serious ones) reject most of them. They go through a process of peer review, which is not dominated exclusively by "mindless" Chomskyans. PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK DR. FETTZER!!!
"Chomsky is so revered that any criticism, no matter how well-founded, is viewed as heresy by his mindless followers."
Were you high when you wrote this, Fetzer??? Anti-Chomskyan critique is well rep-resented in the literature; even Chomsky himself has recanted and been realistic about the applicability of his earlier work...tell the whole truth or feck off back to moo u.
Linguists have constantly written about evolution for the past 200 years!!! The current president of the Linguist's society of America John Anderson wrote about this topic. This is completely laughable, I havn't found a single Linguistic's journal that has NOT published "antiinatist" articles.
For people who are seriously interested in the topic of how formal logical systems are related to formal models in linguistics, i.e. the relationship between Carnapian formalism and Chomskyan formalism please see Tomalin (2006) 'Linguistics and the Formal Sciences'. Its a very good book, and it might clear up some of the dust that this guy throws around.
Furthermore, tacit knowledge is NEVER easy for the informant to uncover, in any field. Why would innate knowledge be uneasy to discover. Thats like saying that the fact that I have a nervous system instntly makes me a good neurologist.
There are many streams in Linguistics published in the main linguistics journals that take positions adamently opposed to Chomsky, just look at the literature on Relational Grammar, Functional Grammar, Construction Grammar, Linguistics Typology, Semantic-Syntax, among many others. My own department teaches Chomskyan and nonChomskyan linguistics.
The issues that Fetzer discusses ARE hotly debated in linguistics. In the 1960s there was a generative semantics movement that essentially proposed many of the things he is proposing except explcitly and they made models etc... Saying that "language" is formed out of "concepts" is obvious, and completely besides the point that is made by CHomsky (and many others its not just him!). He may be a very good philospher, but I must apologize he is completely unfamiliar with lingustics literature.
i think what i was referring to was Fetzer's fairly superficial explanation of chomsky linguistics ( 'appears full blown' he doesnt suggest that at all) in order to quickly discredit chomsky political writings (not dealing with 'profound issues'), simply because he doesnt agree with Fetzer's 911/kennedy theories. Btw, i would be very skeptical about Fetzer's claim about the CIA and kennedy......
As a (non-Chomskyan) linguist, I see this video NOT as a rebuttal of bad linguistics, but as an ill-supported statement of opinion. Around 9.00 he implies that rejecting Chomsky's innatism precludes articles from getting published in journals. That is false. Michael Tomasello and dozens of other acquisition specialists are anti-innatist yet often get published. His remarks about syntax after 9.00 are just his opinion about deep issues that NOBODY grasps well yet.
The bit after 10.00 on acquiring the concept of ball is irrelevant: its about semantics, not syntax. Fetzer does not know (or ignores?) the fact that the proposed innate syntax is not accessible to introspection. So it is not evidence against UG that logic students dont understand syntax well and that linguists have no uncontroversial theory of UG.
you say "after 9:00 are just his opinion about deep issues that NOBODY grasps well yet." implying that this may happen yet. I find that exciting. Can you direct us elsewhere for an expansion, an elaboration and if not the solution to better outline the problem and how humanity would be better for understanding this?
Maybe he said he doesn't believe the 9/11-caused-by-US-gov conspiracy because he genuinely, really, truly thinks they are wrong? What's with this gate keeper nonsense?
For example, I'm not American, I have nothing to gain or lose from this, but I do not believe the 9/11 movement's claims. If you want to challenge Chomsky's assertion, attack his counter-argument in the other videos, not his person.
"wow", "really", "wow", "right, right", close your chakras Paula cos your brain is leaking into the aether. Have you actually done any serious research or do you just sit around saying "wow"? Paula, seriously dig more deeply, please don't make statements like "a true gatekeeper of the left misleading thousands" this is disingenuous and deeply ignorant. Put Fetzer and Chomsky and the same table before you draw any conclusions.
All I'm saying is if you are going to give someone a platform to air their views at least use your critical faculties in dealing with the persons claims. Chomsky is very clear on why he has avoided the 9/11 debate, and his reason is valid, that's his choice, he has also presented some very rational reasons why many of the 9/11 claims are implausible. However, there are certain details he does dismiss which do bear more consideration, but that does not imply he is some kind of gatekeeper.
Furthermore, please appreciate the huge contributions Chomsky has made in educating people about the grave injustices imperial nations across this planet are perpetrating against the innocent, the mans efforts are admirable, he has done nothing but good, and has spread nothing but a message of peace and understanding so how can you turn around and dismiss him with gatekeeper of the left rhetoric? it is simply not borne out by the facts.Please look more closely at those spreading this malice.
Actually, he has dealt with 'tangibles', such as the IMF, The World Bank, war corporatism, and other verifiability corrupt activities of the various global elites. What he doesn't deal with are the kinds of speculative, overtly simplistic models you describe; that are, as yet, unprovable, and not becasue there is any kind of conspiracy, but because there is a general lack of 'real' evidence, therefore a general lack of credibility. Deal with issues you can do something about.
No evidence? No verifiable? You have much research to do pal. How about just listening to the news? America pays over 400 BILLION to the banks in interest every year, this doesn't even touch the principle. This does not include monies made from citizens. This is only 1 country out of MANY. And you say there is no oligarchy in place? I'm glad that at least you mention the IMF and world bank, but these are only arms on the pig. And there are very real and simple solutions to the biggest problems.
The only thing is, Chimpskee doesn't raise any awareness of this larger issue, and doesn't present any real solutions. Like perhaps lobbying for monetary reform, and getting our own government to be policed by the people it represents.
Im sorry but it sounds like you really have not read much of Chomsky's writings and are instead jumping on the Chomsky bashing band wagon. If you had read Chomsky, and knew the details of his world view, you would know that he discusses plutocracy very explicitly. Your issue boils down to Chomsky on 9/11, deal with that, don't make sweeping generalizations of the mans views without presenting specifics. 9/11 truth has turned into a money racket, and a vehicle for elements of the Christian right
actually, I hadn't mentioned 9/11 once..and i'm not sure where i stand on that issue..you're just lumping me together with what you'd be considering "conspiracy nuts". actually I've done alot of reading, and have in my own research concluded these things. my main goal, in even discussing this with you is spreading awareness of these bastards... most people don't even know their names! chomsky really isn't helping this cause at all..and it p's me off.
I disagree, and this goes back to my earlier comment, people are very quick to forget how much Chomsky has contributed to the development of a greater popular awareness of issues that are central to a real understanding of contemporary geopolitics. At this point in time there is a lot of dubious information floating about, much of it speculative, whereas Chomsky still hits the mark on issues that many of the fringe theorists don't even acknowledge as meaningful. I mean JFK?? who gives a fuck
The argument regarding Chomsky's work was not explained well. We speak properly without knowing the rules of syntax or being able to describe the rules, so the idea that your logic students don't know the rules would be consistent with Chomsky's research. I am very surprised how ignorant what you are saying sounds, when I too am a 911 truth seeker. I am surprised how ignorant Dr. Fetzer is regarding linguistics and evolution, despite his passion regarding the subject. I could say more...
the suffering of another (my soon to become cancerous ass if you have indeed such power of focus) is not the best strategy to meet either your needs and such buddies that would participate in such an experiment of "intention"....if shown a better way why would someone not take it a MORE satisfying method to meet the need for..... security?
according to ayurveda it is all connected.....good political knowledge and good medical knowledge as well as self study are not separate...our culture prevents the most powerful knowledge unfolding by compartmentalizing thus all our institutions and bodies never achieve perfect health reflecting our imperfect knowledge
No one can possibly take you seriously, you are an arm-chair intellectual, your ideas are lazy and vacuous, you and your Truth Movement clique are doing irrepairable damage to the dissident culture, please stop it, really, I say this as someone who has sympathy for your views.
@sappo14 the proof of the pudding is in the eating...philosophy, religion, law were one studies at one time and balance in society reflected the accuracy of understanding/ anyone who has experienced a "supernatural" healing after getting a death prognosis understands that "supernatural" is only a term reflecting a lack of understanding of the full range of natural law
Everyone is in fear of the invisible government. Dr. Fetzer should know that because they assassinated Kennedy, they will also assassinate Chomsky. Just as they demolished the Twin Towers with people still in them.
@ludachris475...consider for example that Noam's wife had cancer and so does he...in past societies the study of politics, law, philosophy and medicine followed the same principles. Knowledge should heal, I feel for anyone suffering physically
Oh, I'm sorry, I think I read about this. Being an influential figure I would imagine he would say the otherwise. I was hoping he would, and so I imagine someone bribed him to keep his mouth shut on the matter. He has openly said the Kennedy assassination was not important, and that he did not care. This is a strange remark from Chomsky.
oh and maybe you'll have the satisfaction of having "cursed" me? Do you believe in such things? Why would you bother making sucha a statement? I believe we can LEARN from each other. I wish life for others, all others, especially from those who disagree with me, as long as we stay in connect we can learn more from someone who DOESN"T think as we do than from those that do. what do you think?
Misrepresenting well respected scholars work, and Dr. Fetzer's oversimplification of Chomsky's work with hyperbole and character assassination is not helpful for any goals that it appears you are attempting to accomplish. If these discussions are for the purpose of word salad or further confusing the public regarding these issues, well I think you may succeed.
I have thought about this at length, and I sincerely believe that either Chomsky has been bribed or threatened in some way to recant what is so obvious. It would be intellectual disingenuous for it be otherwise.
No your framing the issue and why don't you make what your saying clear. What do you mean conspiracy is the most indited crime in all 50 states. Not necessarily depends on who you are. And the only conspiracy I believe in is the one behind Martin Luther King which it was documented(COINTEL) that the FBI had King under surveillance. Also that they were watching other known dissidents and carrying out illegal actions. However no inditement for them.
You are funny by being vague you try to feel me out, but once I said I think that the focus on 9/11 conspiracy theories was fallacous you have no more questions. You are willfully trying to decieve people. I don't understand well yes I do but there are numerous authors who document many aspects of american history and politics. Who do you believe is right? You can fool some people sometime but you can't fool all the people all the time.
@jcjamrock sir conspiracy is THE most indited crime in ALL 50 states so that word has no shame for me....do you for example believe in the official conspiracy theory? that 19 hijackers with box cutters brought down a building in 11 seconds baffling the entire defense of the US? You believe the keans Hamilton conspiracy
Yeah, but it doesn't vary at random. Modular changes in one part of the computational system should have predictabl effects across the whole DP in a language. Read some of the stuff coming out of UBC on Halkomelem Salish, comparing its DP structure to that of English. Anyways even if syntax were just epiphenomenal of semantics, you would actually have to show that, which people have done a bit with relatively successful stochastical models.
@jcjamrock: this is a real insight...I have been asking how to find "the man" and feel I owe him an apology about 9/11 as I no longer believe it was an inside job but a MEDIA job.....perhaps I will be able to get an interview with him
Are you being serious? Why the quotations and what do you mean you have been trying to find him to apologize?Chomsky is fully aware why people attack his thoughts he has been criticized by many from the left and the right. They call him a left wing gatekeeper whatever that means, I find that odd considering the fact that he is an anarcho-syndicalist.
@jcjamrock: it is a cosmic connection here...YouTube is taking down sites that show the TV fakery done during 9/11 (among other sites that interest me greatly)...in asking around how one deals with this I found that Youtube is owned by Google and google is owned by "the Man" so I said i wanted to meet this man and your comment came....how do you feel about 9/11 and Chomsky's silence on the topic?
Is this an interview with Jabba the Hut? Cause Fetzer not only has no visible neck, it seems his neck has a life of itself and takes over his heads motion. Is this Flubber?
911fooledagain I can't believe if what you just attached has merit you would say such useless things that does not advance our command of an important topic!
I've said this before in another post: his complexity argument doesn't hold water. Just because we don't understand how syntax works doesn't mean it isn't innate. I have no idea how my liver works, but I still have one and it does its job. I can't explain syntactic structures, but I can speak English (and indeed a couple other languages) with no effort at all. His arguments aren't arguments at all.
Okay even if we disagree about what he sais cant we agree that the funniest thing about this video is the interviewer just stairing at him blankly and saying "wow" even though she has no idea what hese talking about.
wow! you're really smart..gee thanks for helping me figure that out..pretty soon they will have courses in YouTube and you will see how quickly all this becomes very petty indeed as we evolve into a non-linear style of communicating and don't need to hide behind "smart" handles but show ourselves and as Plato said the laws will be written not in books but upon the hearts of men (find that syntax)
Look, I disagree with Chomsky about JFK. I also disagree with him about 9/11. I believe there are legitimate questions to be asked. But disagreement, in his case, does not equal disavowal. That is what infuriates me about the comments made by you, Ms. Gloria, and Dr. Fetzer. Frankly, neither of you are fit to polish Chomsky's shoes let alone make these grandiose claims about his "legitimacy."
why all the hate mail? i think fetzer is articulate and explains the subject quiet well..chomsky is a tool in many ways..everyone is a linguist..now that was a good comment...haha indeed....
(part four)I hear about physics all the time in this debate, but so far no one like Dr. Fetzer has explained WHAT in physics shows that the towers couldn't fall. Can he? WILL he? Will anyone??? I rather doubt it. There ARE legitimate questions to be asked about 9/11, but until we who are serious can get people like Dr. Fetzer and David Ray Griffin to SHUT UP, those questions will never get a fair hearing.
Farther down the mumble mumble?
sugarydonkey 4 months ago
What a load of shit Fetzer; you know the debate amongst Chomsky, Skinner, Quine, Pinker, Piaget, Lakoff, Putnam, Fodor and all their supporters and detracters have been raging for DECADES ON END; there is no "censorship".
Your ideas on syntax are self-contradictory and cannot be seen in reality; all known grammars follow the same very basic rules of structure, and that children know them independently of direct experience. They simply cannot arise without distinct variations, which have [con]
niriop 5 months ago
never been seen. I can only assume the paper of your colleagues was as poorly argued as you are here, probably taking the same aggressive tone you did in that journal of Synthese you edited (remember how disgusted everyone was?).
Oh yes, and as for Paula Gloria insinuating Chomsky, a Jewish son of a Hebrew scholar, is a Nazi because he believes in genetics: fuck you you ignorant cunt! Even Fetzer turned his nose up at your rambly bullshit. "That's really fascinating" Fucking clueless twat...
niriop 5 months ago
nice black and white checkerboard floor
frogger1017 5 months ago
His deep lack of understanding regarding linguistic concepts in general and universal grammar in particular is baffling.
"If there really were innate syntax it ought to be pretty simple to figure out what it is since everyone uses it." I was really surprised when I heard this. For this man, discovering the nature of mankind in its integrity is no difficult task, since innate things that everybody has/uses are simple to figure out. I bet he has a shelf just for his Nobel prizes.
pedromartins 7 months ago
Well, abandoning a dying paradigm can challenge the weakminded. For openers, try PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2nd edition (1996). For more advanced students, try THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005), where I am more direct in critiquing the views of Chomsky, Fodor, Pinker and such. Let me know if you need some tutoring. From your comments, it sounds to me as though you may need a lot.
JamesFetzerNews 9 months ago
@JamesFetzerNews thanks Jim!
paulagloria 9 months ago
With regards to linguistics/cognitive science or whatever, this guy has no familiarity with the literature on the topic he is discussing. He's not even asking the right questions. He's framing the debate in a completely idiotic way. First of all, a lot of the stuff he argues is already in the literature, its just ppl have more empirical evidence to back it up (i.e. languages besides English and more than just collocations of two words), and thus develop more sophisticated views on the topic.
Algonkianist 9 months ago
Chomsky is becoming more of a joke every day. He pretends to be an anarcho-libertarian but he loves big government and loves saying the UN should control the US. Totally pathetic. Anarcho-libertarians, minarchists, and palaeoconservatives correctly grant Chumpsky no quarter. Furthermore, Foucault was far more intelligent than Chomsky.
RepublicConstitution 1 year ago
@RepublicConstitution so if Chomsky is not a "Anarcho-libertarian, minarchist, or palaeoconservative what is he?
paulagloria 1 year ago
@paulagloria As I said, Chomsky claims to be an anarcho-libertarian but in his actions and the totality of his works, he tends to call for UN intervention in the US to restrict US power--this is the sign of a lover of Big Government. His attacks align with the socialist-leftist-liberal-big government-nanny state side of the paradigm if you wish to attempt to classify it. He hates traditional minarchist libertarians who call for a free market that is without government interventions.
RepublicConstitution 1 year ago
@RepublicConstitution yes indeed the UN is a huge problem in regards to real science on cannabis. You can't get in the UN "club" without fu*king your country by banning cannabis - thus the trouble in Egypt came months ago when they violated and swarmed into the age old hashish cafes - the real criminals are those disallowing through Unconstitutional "laws" freedom of thought, action and choice.
paulagloria 1 year ago
Chomsky bash much?
michaelcjordan 1 year ago
Comment removed
moobie1010 1 year ago
LOL. That video is highly entertaining. Stupid people who don't know they are stupid FTW.
moobie1010 1 year ago
Oh my God, I cannot believe this guy actually believes his own drivel. Garage doors opening? This is hilarious. The government account is complete and utter rubbish. Right. So we don't buy into this BS because of cognitive dissonance? This guy is still convinced that several of the hijackers are still alive. But he cannot find them. Kevin Barrett tried, but couldn't either. And now he is going to deconstruct Chomsky?
bman342 1 year ago 3
@bman342 do you believe that hijackers took down the WTC by flying an airplane into them and causing the stunning destruction vs weapons that do that kind of damage vs delicate machines that carry people through the air?
paulagloria 1 year ago
@paulagloria please don't patronize or insult our intelligence with idiotic questions like this. There is ZERO proof of controlled demolition. All there is is specious speculations re melting points, maximum combustion temps, etc. As if there's a laboratory somewhere where we've been testing flying fully-fueled passenger jets at peak speeds into 110-story office towers of the same construct as the WTCs. BTW, people have been hijacking plans for decades armed with far less than boxcutters.
bman342 1 year ago
Stupid video. What a complete waste of time. It's telling that the title is a lie, as is everything contained in this video.
Narwal88 1 year ago
16:20, According to whom are media control by corporate interests and government abuse of power *intermediate* issues while singular events such as JFK's assassination and 9/11 *the* most important? I guess according to conspiracy theorists like this silly man. 17:53, Had JFK lived, the things that Feltzer spouts would not have happened. Abolish the CIA and Fed? Come on!
Francise05 1 year ago
14:06, While it's understandable that the interviewer is ignorant on the subject, it was never Chomsky's goal to "find the innate syntax," but to examine the principles of mind/brain evolution, development, and function that give syntax the properties it has and not others. Starting at 14:33, the fraud is clearly not familiar with the literature. NOBODY says that the mind appeared suddenly with syntax. He needs to read more, particularly Pinker, Hauser, Marcus, Fitch, and Piattelli-Palmarini.
Francise05 1 year ago
13:38, I've never seen a strawman quite like this: "Since it is ridiculous to countenance that early humans could conceptualize today's technology, it is also ridiculous to imagine that the capacity to build technology is innate." In no way, shape, or form is this what Chomsky and other so-called nativists think. Rather, they would say that the ability to manipulate tools is innate and technological knowledge is spread through cultural evolution.
Francise05 1 year ago
12:03, Here, Fetzer gives a ridiculous nonsequitur, "If there is innate syntax, it should be trivial to characterize it since everyone has it." I guess all of cognitive science and human neuroscience should be easy since it's about *us*, right? Does he really mean that any science that studies human nature should be easy? How could a so-called philosopher not understand such a ludicrous logical fallacy?
Francise05 1 year ago
Let's look at another nugget of nonsense. The "semantical capacity" to acquire language is a completely incoherent phrase, just as "syntactical capacity" is meaningless. We do know that infants have *something* that enables them to attend to certain properties of signals and not others, which allows them to build up a structure, and it is *this* capacity that needs explaining. And to the interviewer, Chomsky does not state that humans are predisposed to speak a particular language (11:22).
Francise05 1 year ago
It's difficult to believe that this windbag had an appointment at a major university. He completely misunderstands Chomsky's linguistics, shamelessly spouts conspiratorial nonsense, and erects strawmen that could be blown down by an 80-year old with emphysema. For one, Chomsky does not say that syntax is innate, but rather than we can understand why language has the structure it does by considering basic biological principles of efficient computation. That's just for starters.
Francise05 1 year ago
@Francise05 Thanks for your excellent remarks and for the chuckles. Really...this idiot should spend less time shoveling Fritos and more time educating himself. Of course, his low average to average IQ cannot be changed...
dendryite 1 year ago
Paula I LOVE your voice...
suren1946 1 year ago
innate syntax = racism... what an irony.
Qubux 1 year ago
'Linguistics' is spelled wrong in the title.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
wow after three years I see I missed an "i" which I will change. Thank you
paulagloria 1 year ago
@paulagloria Are you still doing your show on cable in New York? I know someone who might be interested on being on your show or radio show.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 yes send me a PM
paulagloria 1 year ago
@paulagloria How should he contact you? What is your e-mail address and/or site?
Please advise. Thanks.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 my email is rabbitholecentralATearthlinkDOTnet
paulagloria 1 year ago
@paulagloria I don't think I have seen anyone write an e-mail address like this.
Its kind of cute.
Anyway, I'll let him know. Thank you for your prompt reply.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
This guy is not very smart. He sounds like an arrogant philosophy professor from a community college.
mistermoen 2 years ago 9
@mistermoen *grin* Indeed. By far the most memorable thing about this nobody is his neck fat.
polymath7 1 year ago
@mistermoen Are you saying he isn't very smart because of how you perceive the way he sounds? Good logic.
rhth79 7 months ago
LOLOLOLOLOL
Paula, honey, stay with what you know (cooking, cleaning, making babies...)
monsieurstat 2 years ago 8
" With what linguistic and intellectual elegance you conduct your inquiry with respect to advance understanding with others clearly not your peers."
paulagloria 2 years ago
13:36 HAHAHA such a fucking nonsequitor. He's totally misreading what all these authors are saying. Pinker and Jackendoff have written directly about evolution (Language 2002).
Algonkianist 2 years ago
what do Pinker and Jackendoff think about Malthusianism which is the basis of Darwin's justification for survival of the fittest..
paulagloria 2 years ago
Nothing, because "Malthsianism" not the "basis" for Darwin's notion of the survival of the fittest if words have meaning.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
"if words have meaning" is a condescending statement.. I ask you is the study of linguists about language that relays truth or is truth created along the way with the most powerful creator the winner?
paulagloria 2 years ago
The words "I call shenanigans" is indicative of the winner marking his territory . . . I would take it as encouragement that you have attracted the attention of the surveillance operatives . . . someone sees you as a threat as you continue to foster thought?
MrXenomorphosis 2 years ago
hey MrX here is from EssiacHempLaitrile
" Shenanigans?
Glad you saw that also at the top of your channel, I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me!
take care"
thx for you winning attention MrX
paulagloria 2 years ago
Its not a condescending statement, its a statement which implies that if you say something like "Malthusianism is the basis of Darwin's justification of the survival of the fittest" you have to explain what you mean by malthusianism and basis. Even if it made sense its such a vague and pithy statement thats it weighs nothing. Like saying "Language is (or is not) innate"-Its just meaningless rhetoric.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
@Algonkianist
look I am frustrated too by the 500 or less character thing and that a platform for deep penetrating and shared consideration is difficult. When I read the first chapters of "Progress and Poverty" and realized that MANY intellectuals of the day of Henry George understood these concepts it makes me sad we have only internet ego battles pushing a point that takes time to develop.
Have you heard of sanscrit "name and form" - the right intonation produces the form.
paulagloria 2 years ago
If there is an innate, genetic, inborn, species-specific syntax (as Chomsky posits) or semantics (as Fodor asserts), then every human is endowed from birth with the same dispositions for grammar and vocabulary. Different words in various languages refer to concepts that every human shares and mistranslations should be impossible. There is no place for evolution in either scheme of things, because it is complete from scratch. So why has Chomsky had so much trouble establishing its properties?
JimFetzer 2 years ago
errrg.... I'm not even a Chomskyan linguist but I think you ought to actually read his books in order to critisize generative grammar appropriately. Chomsky and other linguists have some trouble establishing the properties of UG because the topic is complex. Science isn't easy. Nongenerative linguists deal with complex empirical phenomena cross-linguistically that isn't automatically solved by saying that semantic concepts combine together.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
There is no question as to whether or not the human mind is like a computer or not (it obviously isn't). Any one who believes that compositional semantics is ALL you need to build up linguistic systems has never looked at any other languages before. Explain to me why languages that have fixed word order take agreement obligatorily in many languages. Don't just tell me that syntax is an epiphenomena because concepts combine with each other. That explains nothing. Read a grammar stupid!
Algonkianist 2 years ago
keep the good work up jim, because the truth will come out in the end. well done 9-11 scholars.
mrbellweather 2 years ago
The more I listen to the more I'm pissed off. Profound issues like JFK? A mass murder and war criminal who got what he deserved. Who gives a damn who killed him, let's focus on his many crimes.
ehrengm 2 years ago
and god damn it syntax has nothing to do with 'thoughts and concepts'. Does he even know what syntax means? He should be using the phrase 'innate grammar'. Just listen to a sentence there's your syntax. Look at this left parenthesis:
(
THERE'S YOUR SYNTAX
ehrengm 2 years ago
who are these wackos? I agree there's some strange stuff with the wellstone case but energy pulse weapons? what is the evidence: some 'unexplained' configuration of the plane's electrical system and 'a series of circumstantial evidence'. Maybe they should listen to that Chomsky interview on 9/11 (EVEN in controlled scientific experiments there is unexplained phenomenon).
My favourite is
weird guy: I have an expert on electrical magnetism working with me...
fluzie interviewer: wow!...
ehrengm 2 years ago
hey hey ehrengm: why all the energy!
"I have an expert on electrical magnetism working with me... "
I do and I have the amazing results on my body to prove it
-Paula Gloria (herself)
rabbitholecentral 2 years ago
Wow, I respect that you'd actually reply to my comments. I'd like to retract a few things: the fluzie comment is inaccurate, sexist, and inappropriate (my apologies). Also re the JFK comment: no one deserves to be murdered.
But a lot of this video is nonsense, particularly the discussion of linguistics.
AND most importantly Noam Chomsky is tackling far more important issues than a bunch of dubious conspiracies.
ehrengm 2 years ago
And sorry for flooding your video, but one more thing:
I don't understand why all the 'truthers' focus on such ridiculous things as controlled demolitions. If the govt was behind 911 wouldn't 4 simultaneous jet fuel bomb suicide attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon, and (had it been successful) the Capital be enough?
Actually there are many aspects of 9/11 that are rarely covered such as Mohammed Atta's (and at least one other hijacker's) singed passport turning up on the streets of NY.
ehrengm 2 years ago
holy shit....
guts777 2 years ago
You go NowetheBearded.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
Comment removed
NoweTheBearded 2 years ago
lacked the need, or had never thought of it (agriculture is a very complex idea to think up, even for a whole race of hunter-gatherers, when you've never done it before). If humans had just so happened to shift from primarily hunter-gatherer, to primarily farming societies five-thousand years earlier, we'd probably have created jet propulsion )or its intellectual equivalent) about, say, five thousand years ago.
I think that should clear some of that up.
NoweTheBearded 2 years ago
"we'd probably have created jet propulsion )or its intellectual equivalent) about, say, five thousand years ago."
tell me your thoughts about how the pyramids were built
-Paula Gloria
from her day job
rabbitholecentral 2 years ago
you've heard of it. For human culture, we have the advent of agriculture as the primest mover in our social and cultural evolution. It took modern humans tens of thousands of years to become farmers, not because they lacked the capacity to do so, but because they either
NoweTheBearded 2 years ago
species called homo sapiens sapiens, how long we've been around doesn't matter that much to this argument, but let's say forty to sixty thousand years. None of the members of this species can be referred to as primitive man, as every members belongs to a group described as "modern humans." Innate syntax doesn't exactly mean jet propulsion, as Fatzer implies, but let's just say the two do have a direct correspondence.
There's something called culture, maybe
NoweTheBearded 2 years ago
"Fatzer" hahaha. I always watch this video when I need a good laugh.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
I'm not only a student of Linguistics, but also Human Evolution, so it seems I may be able to shed some light on Fetzer lack of understanding of both fields:
"Whether they're primitive, early humans or late humans, which means, by implication, that even primitive man had to have the conceptual resources for jet propulsion, color television, polio vaccine..."
In case you didn't know, we belong to a
NoweTheBearded 2 years ago
After all, they've only spent six or so years in grad school and for some of them, many years since, studying Chomsky's work intensely. I'm sure you've thought it through more thoroughly.
The bit about the ball has nothing to do with syntax.
The interviewer need not quit her day job, or she needs to get one if she doesn't have one. Chomsky's theories do not contribute to racism or Nazism, as she implies.
NoweTheBearded 2 years ago
"Most of those who are enthusiastic supporters of Chomsky in relation to his work in linguistics, in my opinion, simply haven't thought this matter through."
Absurd. The most important supporters of Chomsky's theories about syntax are distinguished syntacticians who hold PhDs in what now? Oh yes, linguistics. I am quite sure, as Fetzer puts it, they only believe him because they haven't "thought this through."
NoweTheBearded 2 years ago
I like Fetzer and think he's a smart guy and love his political work
BUT
the part about innate syntax implying jet propulsion, color tv, etc seems to scream to me that he doesn't really understand what meta-syntax is lol
but in addition, Chomsky has never said that his theoretical syntax existed for all time.. in fact he specifically said it may have emerged in an isolated breeding group... never ever has said that it was always there lol
so yeah Fetzer has misunderstood some bits :)
leet512 2 years ago
I'm curious to know what your alternative theory to innate syntax (universal grammar) would be. Whether you disagree with the details of generative grammar or not, I don't see how anyone could accept the notion that there is no innate human ability to construct sentences either on a syntactic or semantic level.
mikedough2 2 years ago
Don't I mention the work of Thomas Schonemann and William Wong? We have the capacity--strictly speaking, predisposition--to acquire syntax among our genetic attributes. The question is which comes first: syntax (as Chomsky suggests) or semantics (as Schonemann and Wong propose), where syntax is an emergent property of semantic complexity. I published their paper in MINDS AND MACHINES and discuss these issues in THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE and in PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2nd ed.
JimFetzer 2 years ago
Jim Fetzer is a nut
FreakishDonQuixote 2 years ago
"Jim Fetzer is a nut"
spoken like a true linguist
rabbitholecentral 2 years ago
What I find sad about this is that Fetzer doesn't really cite any of the literature that might support his thesis see Anderson 2009 in the latest edition of Language, for a review of some of the ontological issues facing linguists. Currently I am taking a course in my linguistics department called Emergent Grammar, which essentially argues Fetzer's thesis, but we actually read the literature in linguistics, instead of talking about how much we hate Chomsky.
Algonkianist 2 years ago 2
trinitymike has replied to your comment: "Chomsky is so revered that any criticism, no matter how well-founded, is viewed as heresy by his mindless followers."
Were you high when you wrote this, Fetzer??? Anti-Chomskyan critique is well rep-resented in the literature; even Chomsky himself has recanted and been realistic about the applicability of his earlier work...tell the whole truth or feck off back to moo u.
No. It was based on the responses found on this thread. Please elaborate a bit.
JimFetzer 2 years ago
You were responding to me when I stated that Schonemann's ideas weren't new; you were trying to make the misguided and totally incoherent argument that his article didn't get published because the editors of linguistics journals are all obsequious followers of Chomsky. I then pointed this out, and you responded that you were a prestigious professor and you knew it was a good article.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
For example, he says that "the" is associated with its noun because of semantics. Which is true, and this is represented in DP structure in the current minimalist framework. But there are clear restrictions on the articles distributions, which can be accounted for in interesting ways by the syntactic component of the grammar. He doesn't talk about this, in fact he cites no literature on the topic.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
The "FETZER ON CHOMSKY" video to which this one is described as a "response" is only 7:15 and, unlike this one, actually shows Chomsky making the claims about JFK and 9/11 that I find rationally irresponsible, given the evidence, and morally objectionable, because they mislead the public about one of the most important events in American history. If anyone wants to learn more about JFK, then try ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).
JimFetzer 2 years ago
It's a brilliant paper, based on his dissertation, which came out in 1999 after a year circulating to the linguistic journals. It should have been accepted. I say more about Chomsky in AI: ITS SCOPE AND LIMITS (1990), PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2nd ed. (1996), and COMPUTERS AND COGNITiON (2001). I discuss Chomsky on JFK in AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004). On 9/11, visit Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a society I founded in 2005, or try my chapter on JFK and 9/11 in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007).
JimFetzer 2 years ago
Hey Jim! NIce to see you stopping in!
What do you know about John Judge? He avoided my questions totally at a Malcolm X event..../watch?v=h_rmpGmAodg
(about 25 minutes into it)
paulagloria 2 years ago
The paper should not have been accepted, because its just a (rather poor) review of some ideas in Cognitive Linguistics. I'll certainly look at your stuff when I have more time. Its not really a brillaint paper, most of the stuff he talks about have been discussed by Linguists, for the past 20-30 years, and (unlike the work he cites as supporting his view) he demonstrates that he just doesn't understand the generative syntax.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
Right! That's why William Wong collaborated with him and he earned his Ph.D. at Berkeley! They give away lots of Ph.D.s for stuff that has "been discussed by linguists for the past 20-30 years". Really! Give this a rest. You are making yourself look just the least bit ridiculous. I have done plenty of editing of scholarly journals and this is an exceptional paper. I hope others will take a look and give this paper serious thought. I doubt most linguists have an equal understanding today.
JimFetzer 2 years ago
ugh
Algonkianist 2 years ago
Okay, look I totally agree with you on everything, as long as when you say "linguists" you really mean just Noam Chomsky. If I am making myself look so silly why are you responding to me, Mr. distinguished professor who spends his time on youtube watching videos of himself and arguing with some undergrad student in Linguistics. Some of the LINGUISTS (see emphasis!) Schoenemann cites are professors in my faculty. So ha!
Algonkianist 2 years ago 3
OK. I think that explains it. Chomsky is famous for responding to everyone who writes to him. Alas, I took you for your better!
JimFetzer 2 years ago 2
haha, Chomsky's smarter than you, and you're jelous. Thank you for this informative and enlightening conversation Dr. Fetzer.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
Furthermore, the idea that syntax can be built up from semantical analyses, (if thats even Fetzer's idea) was NOT invented by Fetzer. This idea is from Construction Grammar. Its not even clear what exactly Fetzer means when he talks about "syntax", it seems to serve the purpose of attacking Chomsky, but he doesn't talk about what syntax means for linguist's in general or any of Chomsk'y specific ideas, even in his mystical written work.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
Did you actually watch the interview? Don't I attribute the view that syntax is an emergent property of semantic complexity to Tom Schoenemann, whose first paper on this subject I had the honor to publish as the editor of MINDS AND MACHINES 9/3 (1999) after the linguistics journals would not touch it? Chomsky is so revered that any criticism, no matter how well-founded, is viewed as heresy by his mindless followers. See THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005) and THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2005).
JimFetzer 2 years ago
Well you refer to "your" research into "concepts", so I assume you are affiliated. I will, however, read the article by Schoeneman. It should be pointed out that the idea, and explicit modeling of syntax being emergent from semantics is an idea in vogue in about half of the linguistics facultys around North America and Europe, in Construction Grammar, Cognitive Grammar ect... Just because one article concerning this topic was not accepted does not mean that the idea is NOT ALLOWED in some way
Algonkianist 2 years ago
With respect to Chomsky's "mindless followers", YES he has some, by they are minority at least in Linguistics.If you tried to publish an article in Linguistic Inquiry which is practically dedicated to Chomskyan(-like) linguistics it would probably not get published. The comment about evolution that "Linguists haven't thought this through" is extremely silly, the literature, written by linguists (in concert with biologists) on the evolution of language is quite vast. But thank you for responding.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
Okay, if you check out Shoenemann's sources (the ones he approves of), you will find authors that ARE linguists and who do get published in main stream linguistics journal's (cf. Langacker, Hopper, Haiman), just search their names. Linguistics journals recieve hundreds of entries every month, and (the serious ones) reject most of them. They go through a process of peer review, which is not dominated exclusively by "mindless" Chomskyans. PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK DR. FETTZER!!!
Algonkianist 2 years ago
"Chomsky is so revered that any criticism, no matter how well-founded, is viewed as heresy by his mindless followers."
Were you high when you wrote this, Fetzer??? Anti-Chomskyan critique is well rep-resented in the literature; even Chomsky himself has recanted and been realistic about the applicability of his earlier work...tell the whole truth or feck off back to moo u.
trinitymike 2 years ago
Linguists have constantly written about evolution for the past 200 years!!! The current president of the Linguist's society of America John Anderson wrote about this topic. This is completely laughable, I havn't found a single Linguistic's journal that has NOT published "antiinatist" articles.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
For people who are seriously interested in the topic of how formal logical systems are related to formal models in linguistics, i.e. the relationship between Carnapian formalism and Chomskyan formalism please see Tomalin (2006) 'Linguistics and the Formal Sciences'. Its a very good book, and it might clear up some of the dust that this guy throws around.
Algonkianist 3 years ago
Furthermore, tacit knowledge is NEVER easy for the informant to uncover, in any field. Why would innate knowledge be uneasy to discover. Thats like saying that the fact that I have a nervous system instntly makes me a good neurologist.
Algonkianist 3 years ago
There are many streams in Linguistics published in the main linguistics journals that take positions adamently opposed to Chomsky, just look at the literature on Relational Grammar, Functional Grammar, Construction Grammar, Linguistics Typology, Semantic-Syntax, among many others. My own department teaches Chomskyan and nonChomskyan linguistics.
Algonkianist 3 years ago
The issues that Fetzer discusses ARE hotly debated in linguistics. In the 1960s there was a generative semantics movement that essentially proposed many of the things he is proposing except explcitly and they made models etc... Saying that "language" is formed out of "concepts" is obvious, and completely besides the point that is made by CHomsky (and many others its not just him!). He may be a very good philospher, but I must apologize he is completely unfamiliar with lingustics literature.
Algonkianist 3 years ago
fetzer makes a few to many leaps.
henpage 3 years ago
"fetzer makes a few to many leaps. "
like where?
paulagloria 3 years ago
i think what i was referring to was Fetzer's fairly superficial explanation of chomsky linguistics ( 'appears full blown' he doesnt suggest that at all) in order to quickly discredit chomsky political writings (not dealing with 'profound issues'), simply because he doesnt agree with Fetzer's 911/kennedy theories. Btw, i would be very skeptical about Fetzer's claim about the CIA and kennedy......
henpage 2 years ago
look into kennedy's terror against cuba, for example. Oh yeah, and the whole vietnam war thing......
henpage 2 years ago
As a (non-Chomskyan) linguist, I see this video NOT as a rebuttal of bad linguistics, but as an ill-supported statement of opinion. Around 9.00 he implies that rejecting Chomsky's innatism precludes articles from getting published in journals. That is false. Michael Tomasello and dozens of other acquisition specialists are anti-innatist yet often get published. His remarks about syntax after 9.00 are just his opinion about deep issues that NOBODY grasps well yet.
whatsmylogin 3 years ago
The bit after 10.00 on acquiring the concept of ball is irrelevant: its about semantics, not syntax. Fetzer does not know (or ignores?) the fact that the proposed innate syntax is not accessible to introspection. So it is not evidence against UG that logic students dont understand syntax well and that linguists have no uncontroversial theory of UG.
whatsmylogin 3 years ago 2
sorry I am a novice....what is UG?
paulagloria 3 years ago
you say "after 9:00 are just his opinion about deep issues that NOBODY grasps well yet." implying that this may happen yet. I find that exciting. Can you direct us elsewhere for an expansion, an elaboration and if not the solution to better outline the problem and how humanity would be better for understanding this?
paulagloria 3 years ago
wtf :o
Lion117 3 years ago
Maybe he said he doesn't believe the 9/11-caused-by-US-gov conspiracy because he genuinely, really, truly thinks they are wrong? What's with this gate keeper nonsense?
For example, I'm not American, I have nothing to gain or lose from this, but I do not believe the 9/11 movement's claims. If you want to challenge Chomsky's assertion, attack his counter-argument in the other videos, not his person.
Mekaniac 3 years ago
"wow", "really", "wow", "right, right", close your chakras Paula cos your brain is leaking into the aether. Have you actually done any serious research or do you just sit around saying "wow"? Paula, seriously dig more deeply, please don't make statements like "a true gatekeeper of the left misleading thousands" this is disingenuous and deeply ignorant. Put Fetzer and Chomsky and the same table before you draw any conclusions.
digimaton 3 years ago
I posted this over a year ago...are you saying that ALL I said through the entire thing is wow and gee?
Since you have given me no information other than YOUR authority that what you say is so (that I only said wow and right) I cannot comment.
rabbitholecentral 3 years ago
when I load big files I answer from another account
thx
Paula Gloria
rabbitholecentral 3 years ago
All I'm saying is if you are going to give someone a platform to air their views at least use your critical faculties in dealing with the persons claims. Chomsky is very clear on why he has avoided the 9/11 debate, and his reason is valid, that's his choice, he has also presented some very rational reasons why many of the 9/11 claims are implausible. However, there are certain details he does dismiss which do bear more consideration, but that does not imply he is some kind of gatekeeper.
digimaton 3 years ago
Furthermore, please appreciate the huge contributions Chomsky has made in educating people about the grave injustices imperial nations across this planet are perpetrating against the innocent, the mans efforts are admirable, he has done nothing but good, and has spread nothing but a message of peace and understanding so how can you turn around and dismiss him with gatekeeper of the left rhetoric? it is simply not borne out by the facts.Please look more closely at those spreading this malice.
digimaton 3 years ago
lol it's always imperialists vs commies, you chompkins are stuck in the 40's
If Chompskee wanted to really get to the "imperialists" why doesn't he attack the bankers who control 90% of the world's wealth?
The true bloodlines that can be traced to royal families?
The earth drowns and he discribes the waters.
Nicaragua, Cuba, East Timor, Venezuala...
Who's BEHIND the corporations and politicians that allowed them to commit war crimes?
Nobody? Yeah right. . .
bluehorse888 3 years ago
Actually, he has dealt with 'tangibles', such as the IMF, The World Bank, war corporatism, and other verifiability corrupt activities of the various global elites. What he doesn't deal with are the kinds of speculative, overtly simplistic models you describe; that are, as yet, unprovable, and not becasue there is any kind of conspiracy, but because there is a general lack of 'real' evidence, therefore a general lack of credibility. Deal with issues you can do something about.
digimaton 3 years ago
No evidence? No verifiable? You have much research to do pal. How about just listening to the news? America pays over 400 BILLION to the banks in interest every year, this doesn't even touch the principle. This does not include monies made from citizens. This is only 1 country out of MANY. And you say there is no oligarchy in place? I'm glad that at least you mention the IMF and world bank, but these are only arms on the pig. And there are very real and simple solutions to the biggest problems.
bluehorse888 3 years ago
The only thing is, Chimpskee doesn't raise any awareness of this larger issue, and doesn't present any real solutions. Like perhaps lobbying for monetary reform, and getting our own government to be policed by the people it represents.
bluehorse888 3 years ago
Im sorry but it sounds like you really have not read much of Chomsky's writings and are instead jumping on the Chomsky bashing band wagon. If you had read Chomsky, and knew the details of his world view, you would know that he discusses plutocracy very explicitly. Your issue boils down to Chomsky on 9/11, deal with that, don't make sweeping generalizations of the mans views without presenting specifics. 9/11 truth has turned into a money racket, and a vehicle for elements of the Christian right
digimaton 3 years ago
actually, I hadn't mentioned 9/11 once..and i'm not sure where i stand on that issue..you're just lumping me together with what you'd be considering "conspiracy nuts". actually I've done alot of reading, and have in my own research concluded these things. my main goal, in even discussing this with you is spreading awareness of these bastards... most people don't even know their names! chomsky really isn't helping this cause at all..and it p's me off.
bluehorse888 3 years ago
I disagree, and this goes back to my earlier comment, people are very quick to forget how much Chomsky has contributed to the development of a greater popular awareness of issues that are central to a real understanding of contemporary geopolitics. At this point in time there is a lot of dubious information floating about, much of it speculative, whereas Chomsky still hits the mark on issues that many of the fringe theorists don't even acknowledge as meaningful. I mean JFK?? who gives a fuck
digimaton 3 years ago
lol I give up, I saw your page...at least you've got good taste in music> :)
bluehorse888 3 years ago
The argument regarding Chomsky's work was not explained well. We speak properly without knowing the rules of syntax or being able to describe the rules, so the idea that your logic students don't know the rules would be consistent with Chomsky's research. I am very surprised how ignorant what you are saying sounds, when I too am a 911 truth seeker. I am surprised how ignorant Dr. Fetzer is regarding linguistics and evolution, despite his passion regarding the subject. I could say more...
acousmas 3 years ago
note to Fetzer: see Chomsky (1965), and Schutzerberger (1955). see also Quine (1953).
Algonkianist 3 years ago
If we can collectively heal cancer then I hope that we can also give it. Let's join hands now and send send your hippie ass some cancer.
tttdayjr 3 years ago
wow...you have a serious unmet need.
the suffering of another (my soon to become cancerous ass if you have indeed such power of focus) is not the best strategy to meet either your needs and such buddies that would participate in such an experiment of "intention"....if shown a better way why would someone not take it a MORE satisfying method to meet the need for..... security?
What is really going on with you?
paulagloria 3 years ago
You clearly have cancer of the brain you wicked minded souless wanna-be cancer giver
zacharysly 3 years ago
What the blooming hell has Noam Chomsky's cancer got to do with anything? This is in extremely poor taste.
IfanSaer 3 years ago 6
according to ayurveda it is all connected.....good political knowledge and good medical knowledge as well as self study are not separate...our culture prevents the most powerful knowledge unfolding by compartmentalizing thus all our institutions and bodies never achieve perfect health reflecting our imperfect knowledge
paulagloria 3 years ago
No one can possibly take you seriously, you are an arm-chair intellectual, your ideas are lazy and vacuous, you and your Truth Movement clique are doing irrepairable damage to the dissident culture, please stop it, really, I say this as someone who has sympathy for your views.
sappo14 3 years ago
@sappo14 the proof of the pudding is in the eating...philosophy, religion, law were one studies at one time and balance in society reflected the accuracy of understanding/ anyone who has experienced a "supernatural" healing after getting a death prognosis understands that "supernatural" is only a term reflecting a lack of understanding of the full range of natural law
paulagloria 3 years ago
Everyone is in fear of the invisible government. Dr. Fetzer should know that because they assassinated Kennedy, they will also assassinate Chomsky. Just as they demolished the Twin Towers with people still in them.
ludachris475 4 years ago
@ludachris475: I find your handle so annoying and indicative of your comments
paulagloria 4 years ago
Oh, I'm sorry. So sorry.
ludachris475 4 years ago
@ludachris475...consider for example that Noam's wife had cancer and so does he...in past societies the study of politics, law, philosophy and medicine followed the same principles. Knowledge should heal, I feel for anyone suffering physically
paulagloria 4 years ago
Oh, I'm sorry, I think I read about this. Being an influential figure I would imagine he would say the otherwise. I was hoping he would, and so I imagine someone bribed him to keep his mouth shut on the matter. He has openly said the Kennedy assassination was not important, and that he did not care. This is a strange remark from Chomsky.
ludachris475 4 years ago 2
@udachris475: actually as time goes on I understand it more....
paulagloria 4 years ago
you're an idiot. I hope you get cancer so you can go heal yourself. What a retard!!!
acousmas 3 years ago
oh and maybe you'll have the satisfaction of having "cursed" me? Do you believe in such things? Why would you bother making sucha a statement? I believe we can LEARN from each other. I wish life for others, all others, especially from those who disagree with me, as long as we stay in connect we can learn more from someone who DOESN"T think as we do than from those that do. what do you think?
paulagloria 3 years ago
Misrepresenting well respected scholars work, and Dr. Fetzer's oversimplification of Chomsky's work with hyperbole and character assassination is not helpful for any goals that it appears you are attempting to accomplish. If these discussions are for the purpose of word salad or further confusing the public regarding these issues, well I think you may succeed.
acousmas 3 years ago
That's it. Chomsky is being threatened. These people will kill anyone, from presidents to scholars.
ludachris475 4 years ago
I have thought about this at length, and I sincerely believe that either Chomsky has been bribed or threatened in some way to recant what is so obvious. It would be intellectual disingenuous for it be otherwise.
ludachris475 4 years ago
Finally someone had the intellectual courage to arrive at this conclusion, that the government's official version is itself a conspiracy theory.
ludachris475 4 years ago
Uncle Fester is a discredited fool and a conspiracy nut-job.
historywillabsolve 4 years ago 2
No your framing the issue and why don't you make what your saying clear. What do you mean conspiracy is the most indited crime in all 50 states. Not necessarily depends on who you are. And the only conspiracy I believe in is the one behind Martin Luther King which it was documented(COINTEL) that the FBI had King under surveillance. Also that they were watching other known dissidents and carrying out illegal actions. However no inditement for them.
jcjamrock 4 years ago
@jcjamrock: I am clearly asking you how does a building come down in 11 seconds?
paulagloria 4 years ago
I don't know crash a plane into it?
jcjamrock 4 years ago
You are funny by being vague you try to feel me out, but once I said I think that the focus on 9/11 conspiracy theories was fallacous you have no more questions. You are willfully trying to decieve people. I don't understand well yes I do but there are numerous authors who document many aspects of american history and politics. Who do you believe is right? You can fool some people sometime but you can't fool all the people all the time.
jcjamrock 4 years ago
@jcjamrock sir conspiracy is THE most indited crime in ALL 50 states so that word has no shame for me....do you for example believe in the official conspiracy theory? that 19 hijackers with box cutters brought down a building in 11 seconds baffling the entire defense of the US? You believe the keans Hamilton conspiracy
paulagloria 4 years ago
No more questions?
jcjamrock 4 years ago
freedom of speech and thought!!!!!
jcjamrock 4 years ago
Also syntax is innate in my opinion.
jcjamrock 4 years ago
How could it be?
It changes in almost every language...
trinitymike 2 years ago
Yeah, but it doesn't vary at random. Modular changes in one part of the computational system should have predictabl effects across the whole DP in a language. Read some of the stuff coming out of UBC on Halkomelem Salish, comparing its DP structure to that of English. Anyways even if syntax were just epiphenomenal of semantics, you would actually have to show that, which people have done a bit with relatively successful stochastical models.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
If you believe what someone tells you about Chomsky without reading and checking out what he has to say then you are just being willfully ignorant.
jcjamrock 4 years ago
@jcjamrock....yes do you think syntax is innate? you never answered me about Chomsky and 9/11
paulagloria 4 years ago
I think that 9/11 is a terrible crime however I don't think that it was a conspiracy. Also Chomsky talked about 9/11 on several occasions.
jcjamrock 4 years ago
Chomsky is the man and of course they will attack him he's been exposing the corrupt system for years.
jcjamrock 4 years ago
@jcjamrock: this is a real insight...I have been asking how to find "the man" and feel I owe him an apology about 9/11 as I no longer believe it was an inside job but a MEDIA job.....perhaps I will be able to get an interview with him
paulagloria 4 years ago
Are you being serious? Why the quotations and what do you mean you have been trying to find him to apologize?Chomsky is fully aware why people attack his thoughts he has been criticized by many from the left and the right. They call him a left wing gatekeeper whatever that means, I find that odd considering the fact that he is an anarcho-syndicalist.
jcjamrock 4 years ago
@jcjamrock: it is a cosmic connection here...YouTube is taking down sites that show the TV fakery done during 9/11 (among other sites that interest me greatly)...in asking around how one deals with this I found that Youtube is owned by Google and google is owned by "the Man" so I said i wanted to meet this man and your comment came....how do you feel about 9/11 and Chomsky's silence on the topic?
paulagloria 4 years ago
What do you mean? are you saying that Chomsky owns Google or are you just telling me what I already know that I'm being monitored.
jcjamrock 4 years ago
Is this an interview with Jabba the Hut? Cause Fetzer not only has no visible neck, it seems his neck has a life of itself and takes over his heads motion. Is this Flubber?
911fooledagain 4 years ago
@
911fooledagain I can't believe if what you just attached has merit you would say such useless things that does not advance our command of an important topic!
paulagloria 4 years ago
I've said this before in another post: his complexity argument doesn't hold water. Just because we don't understand how syntax works doesn't mean it isn't innate. I have no idea how my liver works, but I still have one and it does its job. I can't explain syntactic structures, but I can speak English (and indeed a couple other languages) with no effort at all. His arguments aren't arguments at all.
Davey1977 4 years ago
Okay even if we disagree about what he sais cant we agree that the funniest thing about this video is the interviewer just stairing at him blankly and saying "wow" even though she has no idea what hese talking about.
LinguisticsGuy 4 years ago
wow! you're really smart..gee thanks for helping me figure that out..pretty soon they will have courses in YouTube and you will see how quickly all this becomes very petty indeed as we evolve into a non-linear style of communicating and don't need to hide behind "smart" handles but show ourselves and as Plato said the laws will be written not in books but upon the hearts of men (find that syntax)
paulagloria 4 years ago
lol. absolutely!
dragosst 4 years ago
Look, I disagree with Chomsky about JFK. I also disagree with him about 9/11. I believe there are legitimate questions to be asked. But disagreement, in his case, does not equal disavowal. That is what infuriates me about the comments made by you, Ms. Gloria, and Dr. Fetzer. Frankly, neither of you are fit to polish Chomsky's shoes let alone make these grandiose claims about his "legitimacy."
robtran 4 years ago
why all the hate mail? i think fetzer is articulate and explains the subject quiet well..chomsky is a tool in many ways..everyone is a linguist..now that was a good comment...haha indeed....
wasy35 4 years ago
"hate mail"?? You must be a newbie to the Internet, because trust me, what I've been writing doesn't even come CLOSE to hate mail.
robtran 4 years ago
@robtran: "hate mail" refers to the energy behind your use of "linguistics"
paulagloria 4 years ago
(part four)I hear about physics all the time in this debate, but so far no one like Dr. Fetzer has explained WHAT in physics shows that the towers couldn't fall. Can he? WILL he? Will anyone??? I rather doubt it. There ARE legitimate questions to be asked about 9/11, but until we who are serious can get people like Dr. Fetzer and David Ray Griffin to SHUT UP, those questions will never get a fair hearing.
robtran 4 years ago