egafd.com

Reggie Perrin wrote:

> You have it in one sir!

Bit of a lucky guess to be honest Reg!

Reggie,

So MIT has an Emeritus Professor of Linguistics who has a theory, on which most of his academic fame is based, that he has published without research, is derided by psychologists and is worthless.

I'd better let my contacts there know.

Oh. Wait a minute, you base this on the fact that you attended a lecture given by him that you weren't taken with and found boring.

I won't waste the phone call then. The chances are that the Chancellor, Provost and President have a far greater grasp of his knowledge and expertise than you and are happy to acknowledge, as many experts do, that he is one of the fathers of modern linguistics

OK, so you don't agree with Chomsky. Whilst others agree with you, many do not and that is no reason for you to post as you did.

After all, he has the lauds and honours - like it or not - and until you have the same or a similar set of achievements it might behove you not to be so vitriolic.

While she was married to Arthur Miller she observed the jewish faith and went to synagogue. According to one of many definition of 'jewishness' that made her a jew.

OK, Reggie, so we all have to accept you know more than the Senate at MIT and many of Chomsky's peers.

As it happens I know a good deal about psychology and the basic pros and cons of his arguments. I also have a good grasp of how realistic scientific research is carried out, with a research Biochemist as a wife and my having provided facilities for scientists and medics in a wide range of disciplines to present their research for many years, working closely with the likes of the RCS, the BPS, the British Association and other similar bodies around the world.

I also know that for every theorist there are a thousand others who will disagree - whatever level of experimentation, analysis and verification has been carried out. That's the nature of academia.

Of course there are theories that seem to be verifiable and are accepted for, sometimes, centuries - only to be eventually debunked either by better equipment, more widespread observation and experimentation or even the actions of nature itself.

The fact is you just don't like the man or your mentors didn't agree with him and you decided to agree with them.

It still doesn't absolve you from being wrong about his eminence in the scientific community and you debunking his work from a position far inferior to his in the academic strata - unless, of course, you are a world renowned psychologist when your different opinion could be worth something.