|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ihmahr
4750 days ago
|
|
|
Sorry, but that is nonsense. His political work is always quite academic, baring an incredible amount facts backed up by references. I think public records are the one source he cites most. Can you point out as single mistruth in his works? Can you point out where he has not been academic where he should have been? He might very well produce the most academic political writings ever. Seriously... |
|
|
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Just because someone sticks in a heap of footnotes doesn't validate their claims. Climate-change denialists do this as a matter of course, but that doesn't make their work academically rigorous. Facts and data points taken out of context can be enormously misleading.
He might very well produce the most academic political writings ever.
LOL no. I read legal opinions and law review articles for fun. I have an intense dislike of Chomsky because I am the sort of person who reads all the footnotes and consults the cited reference works, and doing so on Chomsky's writings has led me in every instance to conclude that he habitually misrepresents his source material by selective quotation and omission of equally important countervailing facts.
When I first encountered Chomsky's writings I was tremendously excited, thinking that this was a guy who Tells It Like It Is. But the more I read and analyzed, the more disappointed I became. Not being American, I wasn't bothered by his challenges to conventional wisdom or the fact that he held a radical viewpoint. What bothered me was his near-constant manipulation of his readers.