Has Noam Chomsky ever recovered since getting BTFO by this god amongst men?

Please explain his thinking to me.

->convince people Sam Harris is correct
Literally no danger of that.

i remember in kuwait we were greeted as liberators by muslims

ayy lmao

You conflate optics with intentions, this is completely retarded. The difference between the to is enormous, though it can be difficult for an observer to tell the difference between which motivates an actor.

At no point has he argued this, it should be very easy to remember given how often he hammers the point that the general muslim population is more fundamentalist and islamist than the leaders. He often points to how the Saudi goverment backed down on giving women the right to drive due to outrage it caused in among the lower classes

I know. I didn't think a shitpost was going to be critiqued. Sorry.
In the case of the US it's optics.

Yes absolutely it's been debunked. Positivism is basically an irrelevant school of philosophy because it renders itself nonsensical.

It just seems weird to me that people think he's a positivist considering one of his more well known contribution to philosophy is him arguing against partly against the logical positivism of behaviorism.

top lel

when it's not being vague, it's making unsubstantiated assertions, and when it's not doing that, it's completely nonsensical.

is that pic only passed around because it sounds impressive to illiterate /lit/fags?

Damn this is retarded

Seriously all post-structuralist need to be killed.

He's talking about Chomsky.
Please read.

I mean, yeah, but the proper antidote to post-structurualism isn't positivism. That is Chomsky's, et al. fatal flaw when it comes to the critique of post-structuralism, postmodernism, etc.

It's an assumption, retard. Do you know what that means?

Honestly, you philosophy fags are so fucking retarded.

Well it's not like Chomsky's only problem with post-modernism and critical theory is that they're not empirically testable.

1.he thinks that writing in an obscure way is a way to gain prestige and power in academia and over the general public

2. He thinks that it's alienating and not attractive to the working class that to understand socialism or even their current predicament, that they have to have a PhD in psychoanalysis, literary theory and 19th century German idealism.

3. Just out of principle, if you can say something clearer and easier to understand, you should.

He's asking for empirical testability because he can't really understand what they're saying and isn't even entirely sure if it corresponds to reality sometimes.

On the second point, I agree.
I'm not saying intellectuals shouldn't be go on with their complicated business, but I agree with Chomsky's sentiment that there are real proletarians out there in the developing world and everywhere else who are in need of intellectuals to guide them and their struggles.

Right he's talked before about how this is especially harmful in third world/developing countries.

and that these intellectuals write in extremely incomprehensible ways, so that no proletarian would understand.

Here's some of what the old man said:
8ch.net/leftypol/res/1012144.html#q1012539

I don't necessarily agree with him on everything of course.

oops, wrong link
youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8

???What?

Its kind of funny that Chomsky was painted as a Maoist supporter because he said something along the lines of "if you were in communist, you would think Mao killing all these people was perfectly justified". Several decades later, Sam is justifying American imperialism in pretty much the same way Chomsky predicted and he irony is 100% lost on his retarded supporters.

I mean, I don't know how anyone could take Sam seriously after this. mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered/

At this point Sam has every scrap of propaganda the U.S. has to offer, especially in regards to Israel.
If it weren't for the Israel shit I don't see how Sam is anything but a pol/ack of the esoteric variety

"At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of Western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate.
samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy
So basically he's implying it has less to do with the fact that burning the shit is disrespectful to their religion but because they specifically dislike our freedom to do so.

He doesn't shut the fuck up about the Saudi government, thats the thing. To him thats the only possible way Muslims can live or want to live.

He himself bases his philosophy on trying purely empirical and scientifically valid endeavours. Of course it demonstrates how dishonest he is because although apparently the Taoist attempt to figure out the eternal truth of how the world works is an "sempiternal claim" all the metaphysical shit that requires that is conveniently ignored. He is also interested in communicating with aliens via DMT hallucinations for some reason. samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

Isn't that just….the problem with philosophy in general?

Philosophy fags are fucking retarded.

I thought I read somewhere that Hume BTFO philosophy ages ago.

I was talking about Chomsky. I think it's weird that either he's presented as both a radical empiricist and positivist when his main contributions to philosophy have been just the opposite. Sam Harris might be the most well known advocate of scientism as far as I know.

Logic isn't inherently true? Is that what you're arguing?

I thought he was a analytical language philosopher? What else has he done?

Is it?

He BTFO scientists not phillophers
Science is built upon a logical fallacy read about the Problem of Induction.
youtube.com/watch?v=sd8cxXfPJU4

philosophers *

He also writes books on the philosophy of mind. He's pretty well known as a major figure of nativism. My first introduction to him was a super dry book review on the subject of behaviorism in an epistemology class which is apparently considered a really substantial takedown of the whole project.

Ahh ok, I only know about his political stuff and even then I haven't read any of his books other than Occupy.

That makes sense. So then whats the alternative if we can't guarantee what we learn from observations?

what the fuck

the only good thing sam harris has done is their work on determinism and even those are bullshit

not them but science doesn't guarantee anything and doesn't claim to

you supply evidence to support a theory, adhere to it until you have evidence that no longer conforms

most things scientists do have nothing to do w/ any kind of "proof", it's just systematized habit making.

also, being useful is more important in science than being correct, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry

as in taking relativity and quantum and mashing them together to explain atypical heavy element chemistry is completely incoherent w/ both theories from the level that its meant to be used at. i.e. electrons don't move around nuclei, so how could they approach relativistic speeds?

bitch, take a number theory class

youtube.com/watch?v=IFqna5F0kW8

Die plz

See although I never studied science I was under the impression that they weren't trying to find "true knowledge" (except maybe Richard Dawkins). Hume wrote the problem with induction in response to philosophers like Decartes, i'm not entirely sure how it applies to our modern day understanding of science except on a superficial level.

And yet it works more reliably than philosophy in producing models of utility with predictive ability. Philosophy fags are literally arguing that science just lucked into all the discoveries.

can be .

If the sun stops rising–if experiments stop being repeatable–science is falsified.

QED–science is not built on faulty logic.

> can be .
How?

Sure. In a competently unrealistic hypothetical circumstances in a world where the sun rises and falls (it doesn't) this will make sense…until science then verifies why the Earth has stopped rotating and the sun did not "rise".

When would that happen? In what context?

I just realized that.

He's so into scientism and all that shit, but yet I hear him talking all enthusiastically about Eastern thought.

He's a dumbass who doesn't even know what he's talking about.

Realtalk now, who /rationalia/ here

...

...

That's stupid as hell.

That's completely bunk as a concept and yet most people won't ever realize the problem with this.

Fucking empiricist pseudos are the worst

...

…
WHAT DOES HE EVEN WAAAAAAAAANT?!

I know hope you're shitposting, but this is seriously a prime example of just how philosophically bunk the scientism-based culture prevalent among degrasse fags and the like are.

They are literally saying that they can get enough empirical evidence to derive an ought from an is. Jesus fuck.

It was a thing in the first part of the century, when the Vienne Fedora Club was still holding its meeting. Later the main proponents, like Popper, turned their back on it and started 'post-positivism'.

What did he mean by this?