Lets talk about Chomsky and his work in Linguistics, specifically his views on recursion and Everett's claims about Piraha lacking it. Is this true? Or are Chomsky's claims about Everett being a charlatan more true?
He is incredibly knowledgeable about international politics - not just current events, but the way nations, states, and figures play against each other in the real world. You can see it in the way he talks.
The same can be said about his talks on linguistics, the critical period, etc. While not ALL of his predictions come true, and while not *everything* he says may stand the test of time, I think it is obvious from hearing him speak that he is a mind-mindbogglingly insightful individual; I wish I had a fraction of his ability to see the shape of things
I do think he is insanely brilliant. I disagree that the majority of the problems on earth are caused by american foreign policy as seems to be his view. Having said that, he would shit stomp me and most anyone in a debate on the topic. So I cant really say much. I guess i just disagree and dont have the right to challenge him on it.
this is not an issue in linguistics. virtually every linguist is aware of everett because he gets press, but they're also aware that 1) he is the ONLY source on piraha, and 2) even if his data were accurate it wouldn't disprove universal grammar.
here's an academic linguistics paper that includes a discussion of the subject, if you're interested in getting your information from a reputable source instead of from anonymous internet memes.
if you'd prefer something less reputable, take a look at this pop-sci 'debate' between everett and a dutch syntactician.
I'd remind that cocksucker that it's a FACT that we are living in the safest and most prosperous time the world has ever seen and that in Soviet Russia or Cambodia him and his academic cunt friends would've been fucking purged. He'd probably blabber some garbage about muh Shah and muh Mujahadeen or some shit.
Wanna see it?
did he renounce this view? and do you have proof that that it did indeed happen? Not trying to start anything, I am just genuinely curious, someone linked me to the zundel trials earlier and i ended up reading quite a bit. not sure where to go from there
He back peddled saying that he never said it "didn't happened", just that he proved inaccuracies in the claims of it happening. Is anyone really surprised that professional whiner refuses to take any responsibility for his own actions?