Chomsky: ‘Ireland (the state) has robbed poor working people of tens of trillions of dollars’

He Godwinned himself 🤦‍♂️ and made a balls of his point in doing so. If he had made his point starting from the 2nd paragraph of answer to 2nd Q there it would be both more cogent and less likely dismissed as hyperbolic.

The rise of empire and of State wealth expropriation has many far better examples, some of which he touched upon after Godwinning 🤷‍♂️

The wholesale state thievery and piracy that accompanied Empire of all flavours was/is policy for many states and pseudo-states. Chomsky is a far smarter man than I and his leaping to Hitler in an answer to an important economic question, well for many readers & commentators? That IMO leaves his follow up hanging in the ether, it demeans the rest of his reply.

You'll never get anywhere pointing out the crimes of the Brits and their royal family.

So you're saying he shouldn't have an opinion, am I getting that right? Or maybe whatever his opinion is, it cannot be right or have any value?

He's a linguist.

Used to read his books in my younger years, his edgy "stick it to the man" views resonated well with the frustrated but misinformed younger version of myself. In retrospect, he's just another partisan pundit who selectively rearranges reality and cherry-picks history to fit his set neo-political views.

Amongst other things. A lot of his early linguistic notions have been questioned and quietly put aside. Even he himself freely admitted little of what he proposed could be applied to language learning.

His theorys in linguistics have nothing to do with methods to learn a new language.

Linguistics is a cognitive science and has nothing to do with learning a new language rather an investigation into the core properties of language development in humans. Chomsky's main theory was universal grammar which hypothesized that humans had specialised circuitry in the brain that decoded language. At the time it was a revolutionary idea that is generally accepted today. It is also backed up by research namely the poverty of stimulus in infants studie. Infants uttered words that they had never heard before implying that language was not something learned via external inductive reasoning.

His core theory is generally accepted as being the correct way to look at language adoption, but because the brain is little understood it is difficult to verify if it's exactly true.

A lot of it has been dropped or challenged and even he's revised his views of it. Some of it, like the LAD, is pure pseudo science with no evidence and there's been a lot more, better work since he proposed them.

Chomsky has been spouting the same analysis since the 60s.

The world has repeatedly changed, his analysis never does

It's not a theory I ever thought much of but it was still interesting to read about it. It's part of the history of learning, just like the reductive behaviourism of Skinner is. You are welcome to fly the flag for him but it's never ever been remotely close to 100%. Its real value is in how it spurred others to challenge it and to produce better insights into learning. How we learn language is far more eclectic than a hardwire in the brain or some innate recognition of a UG.

I've posted a link to a more credible commentary on UG than either of us can muster. There are plenty of others out there. You'll note in it how he and his acolytes have shifted definitions of it over the years. It is just what he does and that's fine. I've seen him do it in person and he wants to defend it but it's absolutely unsupported by evidence. In short it's really not a valid theory at all but the neatness of the idea still attracts people.

Evidence Rebuts Chomsky's Theory of Language Learning - Scientific American

I have contemplated responding to you because I am fully aware it's not something you have thought about much at all. (With the greatest of respect).

You posted a link by Scientific American which is not a study or evidence against the theory of UG but an honorific discussion of the state of play within linguistics at this moment in time. All it is saying is other theorys are being investigated at this moment in time. Its not evidence against the theory or even dating it as pseudo science as you so arrogantly put it.

Here is peer reviewed research and evidence that is supportive by NYU (New York University) and the Max Planck institute of the validity of Chomsky's theory. I'll say it again, Chomsky's theory is thought in all serious linguistic programs the world over. UG is accepted by the vast majority of linguists. The only controversy is how the system works which as Steven Pinker puts it as being a very difficult question that is "bigger than any one of us" with reference to Chomsky being the most influential figure.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2015/december/chomsky-was-right-nyu-researchers-find-we-do-have-a-grammar-in-our-head.html

Well don't mind me if I choose to listen to actually scientists like Chomsky and Steven Pinker instead of you then.

I've actually just shown you a peer reviewed study and you've shown me a highly bias article that doesn't disprove UG.

You are showing a tremendous level of ignorance when it comes to science. Did you know that string theory in physics is mainly just a postualated theory made by mathematical abstractions? The lack of physical data doesn't stop them from developing or revising this idea though does it? And that's a theory that does not have anywhere near the same empirical evidence as something like UG. Yet it's something some of the smartest people in the world work on.

Like Chomsky's theory if and when technology makes the theorys more testable then you will have conclusive evidence.

They are major theorys in both fields not pseudo science.