Top Intellectuals

[Manny]

What jumps out for me is how few of these guys are in the hard sciences or applied fields. Havel, of course, is a huge exception -- you can't get more applied than being President of a newly freed country! Chomsky's field has some applications, but not that would affect the common person. Krugman is an applied economist, but actually applying his ideas would result in racism and poverty, so we can throw that out. Outside that, it's mostly not just intellectuals, but intellectuals for intellectuals musing about things which are unfalsifiable in science and tangential (at most) to the everyday lives of people. Stephen Hawking was among the top write-ins, but not on the list. Where's Gordon Moore? Now there's an intellectual whose ideas changed people's lives. Where's Santiago Calatrava? There was only one architect on the list of 100. Only two attorneys (both good choices). They got better in biology, with five applied biologists in addition to historical biologists like Diamond and Dawkins and in physicists with four. But none of those guys made the "people's choice" top 20.

I think the Foreign Policy editors did a better job than their readers and that even they missed the mark a lot. How do you list nine economists in 100 intellectuals? And if you do, how do you include Larry Summers but miss Milton Friedman?

 

[drkitten]

Well, not exactly. He got famous because he rode the crest of a scientific revolution in linguistics.

A scientific revolution in linguistics that he largely created himself. People who reinvent entire fields have a tendency to become noted, famous, "intellectuals."

 

[Orwell]

OK, that's true, but it doesn't apply necessarily to people who get called "intellectuals" or who are on the hard left.

The first on this list is Noam Chomsky. Are you going to call Chomsky an unabashed big-business capitalist?

No. But Chomsky wasn't the issue here. American was shoving Chomsky together with "american liberals", which is the most anti-natural classification you can come up with. Chomsky has nothing but contempt for "american liberals" in general and the democratic party in particular. He usually doesn't even bother to distinguish democrats from republicans.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Chomsky is a linguist. He's really good at impressive and scholarly-sounding statements but in essence all he really does is make a living demonizing America. That is how he makes his money. How he ranks #1 out of all the intellectuals on earth makes me highly suspicious of the list, and the criteria used to compile it. Call me skeptical of the list's value.

 

[Cain]

I think the Foreign Policy editors did a better job than their readers and that even they missed the mark a lot. How do you list nine economists in 100 intellectuals? And if you do, how do you include Larry Summers but miss Milton Friedman?

Well, if you actually bothered reading the conditions of the poll, or even the writeup of the poll results, you would have your answer.

Chomsky is a linguist. He's really good at impressive and scholarly-sounding statements but in essence all he really does is make a living demonizing America. That is how he makes his money. How he ranks #1 out of all the intellectuals on earth makes me highly suspicious of the list, and the criteria used to compile it. Call me skeptical of the list's value

This is patent nonsense. The trouble with Chomsky's detractors is that they use his towering influence in linguistics against him by making the untenable assumption that his authority in one field somehow diminishes his authority in another. Ironically, they accuse Chomsky of parlaying his credentials as a linguist into politics. He is the quintessential public intellectual -- traveling to speaking engagements the world over, writing back to anyone who writes him, and putting out more than a dozen books a decade.

I'm surprised Posner didn't make the top 20.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Cain
This is patent nonsense. The trouble with Chomsky's detractors is that they use his towering influence in linguistics against him by making the untenable assumption that his authority in one field somehow diminishes his authority in another.

Since it is out of my field, I will grant Chomsky brillaince in linguistics. However, his brillaince in linguistics does not grant him a better status in politics than I have. In fact, his support of Mao and Pol Pot show that he was incompetent 30 years ago. This is his related legacy that he needs to overcome.

Having read his "apologies" for supporting Pol Pot, he has not learned nor admitted mistakes. He fails to realize that it was his extreme bias that made him support mass murderers. His legacy of political thought should relegate him to the same bin as intellectual supporters of Hitler and Stalin. It is interesting to learn why they are so blatantly incompetent but their ideas are not worth listening to.

CBL

 

[kalen]

10 people who don't know when they've been insulted with the label of 'intellectual'.

Have no fear: I am sure no one will label you as such.

 

[zenith-nadir]

This is patent nonsense. The trouble with Chomsky's detractors is that they use his towering influence in linguistics against him by making the untenable assumption that his authority in one field somehow diminishes his authority in another.

Nope. What I said is he is really really good at word-play. In fact he is brilliant at it, and a gifted linguist. He uses this skill to sucker in the weak-minded with his prose.

Ironically, they accuse Chomsky of parlaying his credentials as a linguist into politics.

Chomsky's politics involve one single theme, America is evil.

He is the quintessential public intellectual -- traveling to speaking engagements the world over, writing back to anyone who writes him, and putting out more than a dozen books a decade.

I prefer to call him a "wacademic" who makes money by promoting America is evil... Those evil Americans... Evil?...see: America".

 

[Manny]

Well, if you actually bothered reading the conditions of the poll, or even the writeup of the poll results, you would have your answer.

Oh, wah. I read it, I'm just not buying it. Friedman was out there less than a week ago lobbying for Bernanke to be next Fed chairman, and it is his views on the inflation/unemployment tradeoff which have ruled Fed policy for the latter half of the 90s till now. Earlier in the year he was out working for Social Security reform.

 

[Orwell]

Since it is out of my field, I will grant Chomsky brillaince in linguistics. However, his brillaince in linguistics does not grant him a better status in politics than I have. In fact, his support of Mao and Pol Pot show that he was incompetent 30 years ago. This is his related legacy that he needs to overcome.

Having read his "apologies" for supporting Pol Pot, he has not learned nor admitted mistakes. He fails to realize that it was his extreme bias that made him support mass murderers. His legacy of political thought should relegate him to the same bin as intellectual supporters of Hitler and Stalin. It is interesting to learn why they are so blatantly incompetent but their ideas are not worth listening to.

CBL

Could you please find a link to this text where Chomsky supports Pol Pot and Mao? I'm very curious about it, I wish to read it. Could you at least give me a reference?

 

[CBL4]

Could you please find a link to this text where Chomsky supports Pol Pot and Mao? I'm very curious about, I wish to read it. Could you at least give me a reference?

I will look.

He supported their argicultural policies before it was obvious that they caused mass starvation. In particular, he ridiculed one of the first reports of the mass deaths in Cambodia.

CBL

 

[Orwell]

Nope. What I said is he is really really good at word-play. In fact he is brilliant at it, and a gifted linguist. He uses this skill to sucker in the weak-minded with his prose.


Chomsky's politics involve one single theme, America is evil.

I prefer to call him a "wacademic" who makes money by promoting America is evil... Those evil Americans... Evil?...see: America".

I happen to have read a bit of Chomsky: he never says "america is evil". An accurate caricature of what Chomsky says would essentially sound like this: "american corporate and political elites are evil".

 

[zenith-nadir]

Could you please find a link to this text where Chomsky supports Pol Pot and Mao? I'm very curious about, I wish to read it. Could you at least give me a reference?

I'm not too sure he supported Pol Pot but here's a very detailed analysis regarding Chomsky on Pol Pot.

'Averaging Wrong Answers: Noam Chomsky and the Cambodia Controversy - by Bruce Sharp'

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

 

[Cain]

Chomsky's politics involve one single theme, America is evil.

This is just bullsh!t. I don't even think I can bring myself to call it the "reductive fallacy" as it is such a gross misrepresentation.

Anyway, here's Chomsky's no-the-least-bit-surprising comment on the poll:

Chomsky was unimpressed with the honour, telling The Guardian newspaper that polls were something "I don't pay a lot of attention to," adding that "it was probably padded by some friends of mine."

Oh, wah. I read it, I'm just not buying it. Friedman was out there less than a week ago lobbying for Bernanke to be next Fed chairman, and it is his views on the inflation/unemployment tradeoff which have ruled Fed policy for the latter half of the 90s till now. Earlier in the year he was out working for Social Security reform.

Your middle piece of support -- Friedman's theories ruling Fed policy -- is taken out of consideration by the survey's standard of public intellectual (with which you are free to disagree). Your first and last pieces of "support" can be considered flimsy at best. Lately the only thing Friedman has been doing is terrorizing students on Stanford campus in his over-sized Mercedes and participating in C-Span's Three Hour call-in program.

 

[Orwell]

I'm not too sure he supported Pol Pot but here's a very detailed analysis regarding Chomsky on Pol Pot.

'Averaging Wrong Answers: Noam Chomsky and the Cambodia Controversy - by Bruce Sharp'

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

Well, controversy about Chomsky's "objectivity" is nothing new. I'm no Chomskyite, there are things he says that make sense, some that don't. For instance, in Manufacturing Consent, he compares the media coverage of the Cambodia events to that of the Indonesian occupation of Timor, and as far as I know, this analysis of western media's double standards was spot on. I used to dismiss a lot of what he said, but then the firts Gulf War happened... And boy oh boy, what he was saying on media and propaganda sure explained a lot of what I was seeing on my TV! I won't dismiss what he says because of a few controversies: considering what he says, controversy is to be expected. He's one of those guys that I often disagree with, but that I always bother to listen to, simply because I think he often gets it right.

 

[CBL4]

Here is Chomsky infamous article on Cambodia. It was written in 1977 and he reviews various books on Cambodia. Basically he says that the books that (accurately) report millions of deaths are biased. The reality is that his anti-American bias prevented him from seeing the truth:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm

We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable.

It is a fair generalization that the larger the number of deaths attributed to the Khmer Rouge, and the more the U.S. role is set aside, the larger the audience that will be reached. The Barron-Paul volume is a third-rate propaganda tract, but its exclusive focus on Communist terror assures it a huge audience. Ponchaud's far more substantial work has an anti-Communist bias and message, but it has attained stardom only via the extreme anti-Khmer Rouge distortions added to it in the article in the New York Review of Books. The last added the adequately large numbers executed and gave a "Left" authentication of Communist evil that assured a quantum leap to the mass audience unavailable to Hildebrand and Porter or to Carol Bragg. Contrary facts and even authors' corrections of misstatements are generally ignored or inadequately reported in favor of a useful lesson (we note one exception: an honest retraction of an editorial based on Lacouture in the Boston Globe. We noted earlier that the Monitor editorial and other press comments built on the Lacouture review offer at best a fourth-hand account. The chain of transmission runs from refugees (or Thai or U.S. officials), to Ponchaud, to the New York Review, to the press, where a mass audience is reached and "facts" are established that enter the approved version of history.

I cannot find his after-the-starvation defense of the emptying of Phnom Penh as necessary to prevent famine. It reality Pol Pot sent everyone from the city without their possession to farm without knowledge or tools to do so which led to mass starvation. Pol Pot also emptied hospitals which killed hundreds immediately.

Here are two offhand comments where he compares Israel and the anti-Russian Afghani's to Pol Pot and decides that they are worse:

None of this merited any editorial comment, apart from the regular tributes to Israel's sublime moral standards, which are a wonder to behold. One may recall, perhaps, the reaction in the Times and elsewhere when the peasant army of Pol Pot evacuated the hospitals of Phnom Penh-without first reducing them to ruins, however.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/fateful01.htm

There would, for example, be little utility in focusing on the exploits of the CIA favorite Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the world's most extreme Islamic fundamentalist fanatics, who bears primary responsibility for 30,000 deaths in the capital city of Kabul alone according to the London Economist, surpassing Pol Pot in Phnom Penh, it appears.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199312--.htm

CBL

 

[CBL4]

On China in 1967:

There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable. Many things, in fact, do meet the sort of Luxembourgian conditions that apparently Dr. Arendt and I agree about. There are even better examples than China. But I do think that China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.

Indeed, a recent article in the China Quarterly -- which is hardly a pro-Red Chinese journal -- compares Chinese and Russian communization to the very great credit of the Chinese communization, precisely for these reasons, pointing out that its greater success in achieving a relatively livable and to some extent just society was correlated with the fact that these methods involved much less terror.

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm

To be honest, I left the part in about terror. Chomsky was not supporting of all of Mao's actions, only the argicultural policy which caused starvation. It also has a warped view implying the peasant were happy to give up their land. Chomsky believes that farm land should be collectivized and this bias has led him to overlook the mass starvation its implementation has caused.

CBL

 

[jay gw]

Does anyone want to speculate on why 3 of the top 5 on that list are atheists? Is that what you would expect from a random sample of the general population?

 

[UserGoogol]

Well, not exactly. He got famous because he rode the crest of a scientific revolution in linguistics. It's like saying Bobby Fisher got famous because of his politics. They got famous, then used the fame to issue some controversial statements.

Well yes, I simplified quite a bit. Chomsky's views on linguistics are rather notable in of themselves. But that said, most people who know Chomsky don't give a damn about linguistics, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a signifigant number of people who weren't fully aware what his day job was.

 

[CBL4]

Does anyone want to speculate on why 3 of the top 5 on that list are atheists?

I think there are three reasons:
1) Chomsky is immensely popular because he is exteremely anti-American which appeals to lots of miseducated leftwingers. His atheism is irrellevant to his appeal.
2) Dawkins is the most famous anti-theist in the UK. He has used his scientific celebrity to speak out on many issues in which he may (e.g. ID) or may not (e.g. Iraq war) have the proper background. He atheism helped make his fame.
3) Hitchens' supporters stuffed the ballot box.

CBL