Joel Watts at Unsettled Christianity has one of those blogs where the picture or the quotation at the top keeps changing. He has one of a
Noam Chomsky quotation:
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
Chomsky is not a 9/11 Truther and has argued that the question of 9/11 Truth is just a side show. In other words, Chomsky is one of those who is trying to limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, ruling out 9/11 Truth. Thus, Chomsky will allow debate about U.S. foreign policy, and whether or not using drones is acceptable, but please, don't bring up that silly idea of 9/11 being an inside job. That is not within the spectrum of acceptable opinion. And thus, the very issue that has the most potential for making people lively and disobedient is not allowed to be discussed.
In my opinion, I think we should accept the insight of the above quotation and ignore whatever else Chomsky might have to say about 9/11 Truth.
How has Gnome tried to "limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion" on 9/11?
ReplyDeleteIn the few comments I've seen Chomsky make about the 9/11 Truth Movement, his attitude has been to shrug it off as an issue that shouldn't be taken seriously, not because he thinks it's been refuted, but because (a) unless one is a technical expert, following the debate is too challenging; and (b) it distracts from more important issues. So for him, the question of 9/11 Truth is irrelevant and not a matter to waste one's time on.
ReplyDeleteBut since our foreign (and domestic) policy has been largely shaped by the events of 9/11, one would think that the question of who caused those events to happen would be a central issue. And if it is a central issue, then regardless of how challenging the subject matter, we should make a good faith effort to understand it.
Gnome?
ReplyDeleteIt's true that Gnome, when asked, has explained why he doesn't find the truther position credible enough for him to pursue. But that's not "limit[ing] the spectrum of acceptable opinion". What I was asking is how Gnome does the thing he's referring to in the passage you quoted; for there to be something "out of sync" here he would have to have powers comparable to the mainstream media that he's referring to.
ReplyDeleteGnome (Gnome?) certainly has powers comparable to the mainstream media when it comes to people who have a high regard for his views. And I believe that is a rather large group of people. Thus, if Gnome (Gnome?) says that the 9/11 Truth Movement is not to be taken seriously, that probably has at least some affect on his group of admirers.
ReplyDeleteFor an example of the sort of thing you'd be able to illustrate if it actually happened, see Hitchens:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAaDKZ-SuE
Unlike the sort of thing being imagined in the quote (or in the above video), Gnome addresses the issue when it comes up in Q/A sessions or email. But more crucially, if merely expressing (and explaining) his view that a position isn't very serious is limiting the spectrum of acceptable opinion, then he has limited the spectrum of acceptable opinion on virtually every issue he has ever discussed, in which he typically thinks many mainstream and dissident positions aren't very serious.
As for the new argument you offer, if your point relies on the premise that Gnome has powers comparable to a media monopoly over people who highly regard his views, then I have little to say, since that claim is as ludicrous as it is unsupported by evidence. (Or, in my own case, personal experience; I have high regard for Gnome's views yet (1) have reasons other than his for skepticism about trutherism and (2) have spent much more time reading about trutherism than Gnome would advise.)
JDB, would you consider yourself an exception or the rule when it comes to reading about trutherism?
ReplyDelete"would you consider yourself an exception or the rule when it comes to reading about trutherism?"
ReplyDeleteDepends on the quality - or existence - of evidence that readers and listeners of Gnome somehow limit their (internal?) spectrum of opinion to match what he takes sufficiently seriously. If there is good evidence for this, then (1) I am an exception; and (2) Gnome limits the range of acceptable opinion, ironically, every time he expresses an opinion, on anything. If there is not good evidence for this, and I think there isn't, then (1) I am the rule, and (2) Gnome expressing his view, p, is not equivalent to Gnome limiting the spectrum of acceptable opinion with respect to p.
(2) is so overwhelmingly on the side of commonsense that it should be strongly favored barring extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
From Stewart Bradley's video rebuttal of Chomsky, I would say that there is at least hearsay evidence that admireres of Gnome (Gnome?) take his stand on the 9/11 Truth Movement as good reason not to take it seriously. I would suspect, then, that you are an exception, probably influenced to look more deeply into the question of trutherism by certain friends.
ReplyDeleteI'm quite comfortable rejecting a position that relies crucially on hearsay evidence expressed in somebody's youtube video. This, combined with the silly implication of the argument (namely, that every time Gnome expresses an opinion he limits the range of acceptable opinion in a way structurally analogous to the process identified in his institutional analysis of the mainstream media) is a wonderful place to let the disagreement rest.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious if you watched Bradley's video.
ReplyDeleteI have not watched Bradley's video, which is why I've said nothing about it, instead focusing on the content of this post.
ReplyDeleteAnd according to you, it's not worth watching. Why do I say that? Easy: because hearsay evidence on the Internet is not worth exploring (it might actually be the paradigm case of something not worth exploring). If there's something else worth knowing from the video, in particular something relevant to my limited claims in this thread, let me know and I'll watch it.
Bradley's claim is that many of his friends who admire Chomsky have not taken the 9/11 Truth Movement seriously because Chomsky hasn't. I referred to that as hearsay evidence, since I've heard it from Bradley and cannot verify it independently. I think the video is worth watching, because Bradley plays clips of recordings of Chomsky's comments about claims of the Truth Movement, and some of those comments sound rather objectionable. But perhaps Bradley took them out of context? If not, then it would support the view that Chomsky is more interested in marginalizing the movement than in seriously confronting its claims.
ReplyDeleteSo, apart from hearsay evidence somewhere on the Internet, it seems that, as I suspected, there's nothing else worth exploring here. Lest you misunderstand me: nothing worth exploring with respect to the accusation you make in this post; that is to say, with respect to the accusation that there is some tension between an institutional analysis of the media and a person expressing his opinion on a topic, even if "objectionable," when asked in Q/A sessions or interviews. (For example it's not as if he has gone out of his way to marginalize anybody, which is the expected behavior of someone with the motive you impute.)
ReplyDeleteIf, for some other (to me, bizarre) reason, one wants to address Gnome's reasons for not taking the issue very seriously, then one should collect everything he has said on this issue and carefully discuss it, (1) interpreting it charitably and (2) replying in a way that doesn't grossly mislead listeners (e.g. by clearly implying that the whistle-blowers and whistle-blower material cited actually support the controlled demolition hypothesis; or by making easily falsified claims about whether the mainstream media has ignored this material). That, of course, is not done in this video, which unfortunately I have now watched (nor, it seems to me, could it be done in a twelve minute video anyway, even if it were of non-shitty quality).
At just beyond the six minute mark of Bradley's video, Chomsky says, "...even if it were true, who cares?...." Is Gnome saying, "Even if it were true that 9/11 was an inside job, who cares?"? If so, I would find that an incredibly breath-taking thing to say or ask. I'm left speechless as to how to respond to it or to you.
ReplyDelete"I'm left speechless as to how to respond to it or to you."
ReplyDeleteWhy to me? I didn't express that view, nor would I. Nor does it have any relevance to the (fairly narrow, exact, and clear) point that this comment thread is supposed to be about, namely, the idea that there is a tension between..... [dies of boredom from repeating himself in order to stay on point]
My point has been that Chomsky is involved in an effort to marginalize the debate about 9/11 Truth. You have denied that he is. I point out that Chomsky is even willing to say, "Even if 9/11 was an inside job, who cares?" I don't know how much clearer he could make it that he considers the debate to be irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if "marginalize the debate about 9/11 Truth" means "when asked, explain why he doesn't find it credible," then Gnome and virtually the entire scientific and activist community is involved in this effort; indeed, every respectable activist anyone could have named prior to 9/11 suddenly became state apologists. Moreover, Gnome is involved in a similar effort on every issue he discusses, where there are always countless positions he doesn't take very seriously (and states why, when asked).
ReplyDeleteBut if "marginalize the debate about 9/11 Truth" means something like what is being talked about in the quote you paste, which requires, among other things Gnome doesn't have, a monopoly over information, then it is obviously false.
As for the "who cares" remark, I've said I reject it. But if you're curious about why he would say such a thing, I suggest you email him about it (and let me know if he responds): http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html
Wait, you reject his "who cares" remark, but you don't think it's an indication that he is attempting to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement. I suggest you email Gnome. After all, you're obviously on a first name basis with the guy. Then feel free to publish his answer.
ReplyDeleteIt's not an indication that he wants to "marginalize" the movement, it's just part of the explanation - I reemphasize, when asked in Q/A sessions - for why he doesn't spend more time on the issue. Maybe his view is dumb or offensive, but it's not like the institutional analysis of the media in the thing you quote. Now, if one is nevertheless interested in this particular remark, one should ask him about it. I, of course, am not very interested in that remark - why on earth would I email him about it? I'm not the one publicly accusing him of anything. You are. The moral thing to do in a case like this is to contact the person you are accusing.
ReplyDeleteNo, the moral thing to do in a case like this is to admit that Chomsky has been an inexcusable remark that betrays his personal prejudice against a view that he doesn't want to consider seriously, similar to his attitude to Theism.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. The guy discovered an irreducibly complex system for generating language, that we have innately, that he denies can be explained by Darwinian evolution, but refuses to consider the hypothesis of design, because it doesn't fit into his framework of acceptable views. 9/11 Truth is just another example, only the evidence is much stronger than his linguistic theories. Why should I email someone who is obviously so closed-minded? You think he'll give me a better answer than he gave you?
I repeat: I'm against the offhand remark in the Q/A session, insofar as I even understand what he's trying to say in it (something about an analogy to the theories about JFK). If someone wants to get a clearer, non-offhand view of what he had in mind, one should email him. That doesn't include me, because I'm not choosing to write on the subject. Were I to write on it, I'd email him first, as is respectable academic practice.
ReplyDeleteRegarding an earlier exchange of ours, my mother advised me to cease discussions right when they become psychologistic. Otherwise, this has now begun to take a turn toward psychoanalyzing someone who doesn't take seriously something you, as a layperson, spend a lot of your time and energy on; so it might be time for me to get off the boat. And, as if physics, civil engineering, and biology were not enough, you're beginning to pontificate on a fourth subject in which you have no expertise, this time even claiming to have out-thought the founder of the discipline, rather than seeing his views as reason to (even slightly) lessen your credence in your own untutored positions. Anyway, I can grant as much prejudice in Gnome's head as you want, for the sake of argument, since one can be prejudiced and not do the thing described in his institutional analysis of the mainstream media, which has been and is the target of my comments in this thread.
Lastly, you write, "You think he'll give me a better answer than he gave you?" What are you referring to?
If it were only the off-hand "who cares" comment, that would be one thing. But the guy mentions nano-thermite being found and pooh-poohs it with "whatever the hell that is." It's a high-tech product that can be used for explosives. We can pretend that Chomsky wouldn't know that, or have the sense to look it up, if we want. Or we can see it in context with his other comments and realize that he's decided not to accept evidence for 9/11 Truth. Am I psychologizing? Probably, but with good reason. He's made two wildly objectionable statements, combining it with another statement that 9/11 being an inside job is just so implausible. Given that he thinks it's too implausible, he'll dismiss it and the evidence as irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteI'm not questioning Chomsky's linguistic theories. I read every book and article he had written about it back in '81, along with most of the critiques of his views. I thought Chomsky had the stronger position. However, I'm willing to say that the evidence for 9/11 Truth is even stronger.
I thought it was you who had asked him what his explanation was for our innate language generating apparatus, given that he rejected the Darwinian explanation of it, and that he had given a somewhat hostile, sarcastic reaction, to the effect, "What? You think it was designed?" But if it wasn't you, then it was someone else. The point is that we all have our intellectual prejudices, including Chomsky, which blind us to alternative views. Some people think believing a man rose from the dead is too implausible to be taken seriously, regardless of the evidence.
Right - I'm just not interested in your psychologizing; of course I generally assume you believe yourself to have good reason for doing so, so you needn't say it.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said, my reasons for rejecting trutherism are different from Gnome's, though there is overlap here and there (but certainly not in the additional off-hand remark you just cited). So I can assume his arguments fail for the sake of argument. I would only add that Gnome actually encourages people to take a look at the evidence, contrary to your main thesis here. For example, he is on record as saying of the physical evidence for trutherism, "I suggest you take a careful look at it."
Lastly, I never did ask him a question about what you refer to, at least that I can recall. I did once ask him a question about innate religious faculties when I was in high school, but that was a different topic.
When to Psychologize.
ReplyDeleteVallicella is another person in whose psychologizing I have no interest.
ReplyDeleteHere's the radical psychologizing principle I endorse: You are free to psychologize your opponent when his psychology is the (implicitly or explicitly) agreed-upon topic of discussion.
Chomsky makes radically irrational statements, which had they been uttered by anyone else you would be tempted to interpret as based on biased, closed-minded thinking. In Chomsky's case, your only comments are that you don't agree with them and that I should write and ask Chomsky for clarification, as if he hasn't had time to reflect on his own public irrationality and retract or clarify his statements up until now. Frankly, JDB, I no longer care to hear anymore of your worthless thoughts on this topic.
ReplyDelete