Top Intellectuals

[Freakshow]

Well, being interested in Chomsky doesn't preclude a person from being interested in his equally cerebral opposition.

Intelligence is important because it helps a person to uncover the fallaciousness of the conclusions reached from some of the analyses of a given body of research. I would suggest that most differences in political opinion have to do with an inability in most to dismantle the bad information and find the good. There are "facts" which seem to show why intelligent design would be more reasonable than evolution. This doesn't mean that the two ideas are equally legitimate, and it would take someone sufficiently smart to realize this.

False analogy. Now you are talking science. But I'm talking political opinion. I'm talking about people thinking about the way they want the world to operate. Totally different.

 

[Batman Jr.]

False analogy. Now you are talking science. But I'm talking political opinion. I'm talking about people thinking about the way they want the world to operate. Totally different.

The evolution/ID debate is a political issue.

 

[Freakshow]

The evolution/ID debate is a political issue.

It is a scientific issue, that has politics involved with it.

Compare that to...what SHOULD a government spend on social programs? That isn't a scientific issue. Even if you tried to make it a scientific issue, by trying to measure some sort of "good", and adjusting spending to achieve the maximum "good", people don't even agree on what that "good" is. People want different things. It is not scientific at all.

The evolution/ID debate however, has scientific fact behind it. Regardless of what people want, there is a scientific truth that exists. This truth exists completely disconnected from what people want. Such a thing can't be said of pure political issues. You might think there is some truth about what good can be done by certain political actions, but I might think that the results that you want aren't "good" at all. That's opinion.

 

[epepke]

It is a scientific issue, that has politics involved with it.

Compare that to...what SHOULD a government spend on social programs? That isn't a scientific issue. Even if you tried to make it a scientific issue, by trying to measure some sort of "good", and adjusting spending to achieve the maximum "good", people don't even agree on what that "good" is. People want different things. It is not scientific at all.

Somebody on this forum put it really well. I wish I could remember who, but since the Big Upgrade, I find that I often don't recognize people's avatars.

Politics concerns issues of policy.

 

[Batman Jr.]

It is a scientific issue, that has politics involved with it.

Compare that to...what SHOULD a government spend on social programs? That isn't a scientific issue. Even if you tried to make it a scientific issue, by trying to measure some sort of "good", and adjusting spending to achieve the maximum "good", people don't even agree on what that "good" is. People want different things. It is not scientific at all.

From what I've gathered, there seems to be some sort of general consensus of what is morally "good" and "bad." People often times appear to have different moral interests because they interpret facts incorrectly. Do you have a specific instance where basic ideas of "good" and "bad" varied between proponents of different ideas and didn't rely in the slightest on a misconstruing of the facts to create their variance?

The evolution/ID debate however, has scientific fact behind it. Regardless of what people want, there is a scientific truth that exists. This truth exists completely disconnected from what people want. Such a thing can't be said of pure political issues. You might think there is some truth about what good can be done by certain political actions, but I might think that the results that you want aren't "good" at all. That's opinion.

If "good" and "bad" are so relative, why can't I just say that "truth" is "bad," so we should favor ID? This is special pleading. I've provided a counterexample to your claim of intelligence not having anything to do with politics, and you repudiate that claim by ignoring the moral conformity in favor of "truth" in it and saying that when subjective moral conviction comes into play, things are different. The fact is that subjective morality is at play even in scientific issues, but basic moral ideals are often so uniform that they become non-issues to the extent that they are sometimes almost imperceptible.

 

[Freakshow]

From what I've gathered, there seems to be some sort of general consensus of what is morally "good" and "bad." People often times appear to have different moral interests because they interpret facts incorrectly. Do you have a specific instance where basic ideas of "good" and "bad" varied between proponents of different ideas and didn't rely in the slightest on a misconstruing of the facts to create their variance?

Some people think it is "good" for the government to redistribute wealth, as they think that it results in a more fair system. Others think this is "bad", and think that it is "good" when the government lets people keep their own money, and that this results in a more fair system. These are opinions, just as much as saying "Red cars are prettier than yellow cars" is an opinion.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Some people think it is "good" for the government to redistribute wealth, as they think that it results in a more fair system. Others think this is "bad", and think that it is "good" when the government lets people keep their own money, and that this results in a more fair system. These are opinions, just as much as saying "Red cars are prettier than yellow cars" is an opinion.

I don't think it's a moral issue. Everyone wants the system that has the potential of helping everyone the most. People on the left think that wealth redistribution will achieve this, and people on the right think nonintervention is the best way to achieve this. A better analogy would be this: "We all have decided that we like red cars. What's the best way to make and apply the paint?" I tend to think that this grossly exaggerated picture of moral relativism inherent in the human condition is really nothing more than a myth originating in the apprehensive minds of people afraid to give up their religion for fear that they cannot live without its guidance.

 

[Orwell]

Yes. The implication is that Hekmatyar is worth than Pol Pot. That is downplaying Pol Pot's evilness. It was a comment without any need. The article in question has nothing to do with Cambodia. It is simply an anti-American diatribe and Chomsky has an obsessive need to exagerate the real flaws of the US into woo-woo land.

If you think I was out of context, here are the paragraph before and after the Pol Pot nonsense:
He is a idiot when it comes to politics. But his anti-American cult laps it up.

CBL

Ok, I'll keep playing Devil's advocate here...

As I said before, that segment you posted makes my initial point pretty clear:

Chomsky isn't comparing Israel and the anti-Russian Afghanis to Pol Pot. He is comparing the media coverage given to Israel and the anti-Russian Afghanis to the media coverage of Pol Pot. Nuance.

That is, when that Afghani "freedom fighter" evacuated Kabul, something comparable to Pol pot's evacuation of Phnom Pen happened, but the contemporary media coverage was quite different. What Pol Pot did before or after isn't relevant because at the time, if I recall correctly, no one was quite sure what was going on in Cambodia. The full scale of Pol Pot's nuttiness was only exposed after the Vietnamese invaded.

It should be pointed out that media double-standards is one of Chomsky pet-peeves. He's always going on and on about it.

By the way, I'm not a member of Chomsky's "anti-american cult". But that doesn't mean I automatically dismiss everything he says. I believe some of the things he has said on american foreign policy and on media double standards when talking about US foreign policy to be close to the truth.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I was responding specifically to CBL4 calling Noam Chomsky an "idiot." This is unjustified given the totality of his contributions to the world.

While it is true that I called Chomsky an idiot, in context it is clear that I find him an idiot only in political arena. Here is my "idiot" post:

Chomsky was raked over the coals in the 70s for downplaying Pol Pot's genocide. He did not apologize or admit mistakes. In the 90s, he twice downplayed Pol Pot's genocide again. (Twice that I found in 10 minutes which presumably means a lot more.)

If this is accidental, he is an idiot. If it is intentional, he is an idiot. You can choose.

Clearly, in this case, I was referring only to his defense of Pol Pot. From my other posts, it is clear it could be extended to his political views.

Previously I said:

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.

Re-reading this, it does sound a little condescending but I truly believe that Chomsky has made major contributions to linguistics.

Being a great scientist does guarantee some sort of intelligence but it does not prevent you from being an idiot else where. Just think of the scientists that Uri Geller has fooled. People can be idiots and geniuses.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Orwell
By the way, I'm not a member of Chomsky's "anti-american cult". But that doesn't mean I automatically dismiss everything he says. I believe some of the things he has said on american foreign policy and on media double standards when talking about US foreign policy to be close to the truth.

I agree with the close to the truth part.

The reality is that Chomsky's political articles often come close to making good points and valid arguments. But his problem is that his anti-American venom prevents it.

Let assume that the press was biased towards Hekmatyar. If I believed this then I would find someone who was worse who gets decent press - perhaps one of the Saudi Princes. Instead, Chomsky chooses one of the most evil men of all time. To top it off, Chomsky has already gotten a bad reputation for supporting Pol Pot. If Chomsky is trying to discredit himself, I am not sure how he could have done a better job. IMO, the two paragraphs I quote discredit Chomsky beyond redemption. His political writing is idiotic.

CBL

 

[Mycroft]

We've learned to let people be free for religion. Letting people be free in politics is a tougher nut to crack.

Hmmm.

I think the problem here is that politics, by definition, is about making decisions on how everybody else should live.

If you're a libertarian and I'm a socialist (just for example, not really) then we can agree to disagree on issues and get along fine, but the larger society we live in has to make decisions that will effect us both, and it makes a huge difference if those decisions are made according to my principles or yours.

 

[Batman Jr.]

While it is true that I called Chomsky an idiot, in context it is clear that I find him an idiot only in political arena. Here is my "idiot" post:
Clearly, in this case, I was referring only to his defense of Pol Pot. From my other posts, it is clear it could be extended to his political views.

Previously I said:
Re-reading this, it does sound a little condescending but I truly believe that Chomsky has made major contributions to linguistics.

Being a great scientist does guarantee some sort of intelligence but it does not prevent you from being an idiot else where. Just think of the scientists that Uri Geller has fooled. People can be idiots and geniuses.

CBL

I'm sorry I misinterpreted you. However, your intimation that he "supported" Pol Pot is a bit of a straw man. He questioned the authoritativeness and what he believed to be the much too positive receptions of the initial reports of atrocities coming out of Cambodia and felt that people were only taking the reports seriously because of strong anti-communist sentiment in the US. After the picture became clearer, he admitted Pol Pot's tyrannical tendencies. He even criticized the US for making conditions ripe for the Khmer Rouge's brand of radicalism by conducting bombing raids between 1969 and 1975 which decimated crops and induced mass starvation and a desperation inviting of violent, and ultimately malevolent, revolutionary groups. Why would someone demonize the creation of conditions that would allow for something they, in the end, saw in a favorable light?

 

[CBL4]

Batman Jr.,

Perhaps "defense" was the wrong word. His is not a true Cambodian Genocide denier but rather Cambodian Genocide minimizer.

First of all, his original Pol Pot remarks could be taken as poor scholarship viewed through bias. But the remark 15 years later implying that Hekmatyar killing 30,000 was worse than Pol Pot, IMO, showed idiocy after the previous contraversy.

CBL

 

[Batman Jr.]

Batman Jr.,

Perhaps "defense" was the wrong word. His is not a true Cambodian Genocide denier but rather Cambodian Genocide minimizer.

First of all, his original Pol Pot remarks could be taken as poor scholarship viewed through bias. But the remark 15 years later implying that Hekmatyar killing 30,000 was worse than Pol Pot, IMO, showed idiocy after the previous contraversy.

CBL

From what I've read of his, he doesn't compare Hekmatyar's assault on Kabul to Pol Pot's collected atrocities but instead compares the genocide in Kabul specifically with the liquidating of Phnom Penh. His comparison really isn't one of quantity either; he's concerned with the US opposing and supporting actions which are qualitatively the same proving his thesis that the US is not concerned with rectitude, but with self-serving global dominance. I would also say that much of the criticizing of his initial skepticism of anti-Pol Pot reports suffers from hindsight bias.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
From what I've read of his, he doesn't compare Hekmatyar's assault on Kabul to Pol Pot's collected atrocities but instead compares the genocide in Kabul specifically with the liquidating of Phnom Penh.

Yes, this is what he does. For what purpose?

He could also have compare Hekmatyar in Kabul to Hitler in the battle of Crete. Yes, more people died in Hekmatyar battle for Kabul but so what? This ignores the tens of millions who died because of Hitler's actions.

Actually the Pol Pot comparison is much more insidious:
1) The dead from the Phnom Penh evacuation were everyday Cambodians who could in no way be considered Pol Pot's enemy (they cheered Pol Pot's arrival).
2) The Phnom Penu evacuees that died were almost exclusively civilians. Hekmatyar and Hitler (in Crete) aimed mainly at soldiers.
3) Hundreds of thousand of Phnom Penh residents later died as result the evacuation.

In other words, Chomsky told the literal truth in as a misleading, anti-American way possible. "Dispicable" is probably a better word than "idiot". The word idiot should be reserved for the people who still listen to him after knowing this.

CBL

 

[Batman Jr.]

Yes, this is what he does. For what purpose?

He could also have compare Hekmatyar in Kabul to Hitler in the battle of Crete. Yes, more people died in Hekmatyar battle for Kabul but so what? This ignores the tens of millions who died because of Hitler's actions.

Actually the Pol Pot comparison is much more insidious:
1) The dead from the Phnom Penh evacuation were everyday Cambodians who could in no way be considered Pol Pot's enemy (they cheered Pol Pot's arrival).
2) The Phnom Penu evacuees that died were almost exclusively civilians. Hekmatyar and Hitler (in Crete) aimed mainly at soldiers.
3) Hundreds of thousand of Phnom Penh residents later died as result the evacuation.

In other words, Chomsky told the literal truth in as a misleading, anti-American way possible. "Dispicable" is probably a better word than "idiot". The word idiot should be reserved for the people who still listen to him after knowing this.

CBL

If you're going to keep attacking him using straw men, then I don't know how to convince you. He never meant to compare Hekmatyar and Pol Pot directly. He took two instances of genocide, one instance being perpetrated by Hekmatyar and the other by Pol Pot, and used them to demonstrate that America supports genocide when it furthers its interests but opposes it when it doesn't. He is most critical of the notion that America is somehow some sort of beacon of morality that the rest of the world should take a cue from. Furthermore, the assertion that Hekmatyar went mainly after soldiers is false. According to the Red Cross, 50,000 people were killed, most of whom were civilians.

 

[Orwell]

From what I've read of his, he doesn't compare Hekmatyar's assault on Kabul to Pol Pot's collected atrocities but instead compares the genocide in Kabul specifically with the liquidating of Phnom Penh. His comparison really isn't one of quantity either; he's concerned with the US opposing and supporting actions which are qualitatively the same proving his thesis that the US is not concerned with rectitude, but with self-serving global dominance. I would also say that much of the criticizing of his initial skepticism of anti-Pol Pot reports suffers from hindsight bias.

Exactly!

 

[Cleopatra]

I think it is an exceedingly good list for a popular vote. The fact that Dawkins finishes third is great news. (I imagine there is strong British bias in the voters.) I admire four of the top 10 quite a bit (Dawkins, Havel, Diamond, Rushdie) and have favorable views of some of the others. I admit not to being familar with all the people.

Two of the top five (Dawkins and Hitchens) are famous atheists and Diamond is on the Skeptics board.
ETA: I just read that Chomsky is an atheist as well. That makes 3 out of the top 5.


CBL

CBL , since you are a serious poster I have a question for you. Since , as we all know, the term "Public Intellectual" describes an individual that has introduced or promoted a political concept or idea, could you please name ONE contribution that Chomsky has made in the History of Political Sciences and Ideas? ONE would be enough.

Chomsky became popular ( if exclude his really significant presence in Science) for bashing USA.

When I wish to read some anti-USA rhetorics I rather read Fool's or AUP's posts which are more amusing and mor well written.

It's ridiculous even to discuss whether Chomsky is a political thinker or not. He is a commentator that his articles resemble terribly to the articles of a newspaper we have in Greece and it is published by the Official Communist (Soviet type) Party!!!

He is so marginal that I wonder how it's ever possible to be taken seriously when he is talking politics.

 

[Cleopatra]

But what did we expect the readers of Foreign Policy to vote? Daniel Pipes?!

It's like Front Page Magazine set up a similar poll and we witnessed people celebrating because Daniel Pipes came first in votes!

 

[Batman Jr.]

CBL , since you are a serious poster I have a question for you. Since , as we all know, the term "Public Intellectual" describes an individual that has introduced or promoted a political concept or idea, could you please name ONE contribution that Chomsky has made in the History of Political Sciences and Ideas? ONE would be enough.

Chomsky became popular ( if exclude his really significant presence in Science) for bashing USA.

When I wish to read some anti-USA rhetorics I rather read Fool's or AUP's posts which are more amusing and mor well written.

It's ridiculous even to discuss whether Chomsky is a political thinker or not. He is a commentator that his articles resemble terribly to the articles of a newspaper we have in Greece and it is published by the Official Communist (Soviet type) Party!!!

He is so marginal that I wonder how it's ever possible to be taken seriously when he is talking politics.

First of all, he bashes the USA because the USA actually does bad things. Secondly, saying his articles bear resemblance to those sponsored by the Communist Party in Greece is just claiming guilt by association. Thirdly, atheism is pretty marginalized, so I don't really see how the fact that something might be marginalized to some extent can unequivocally be so determinative of whether we should take that something seriously or not.