Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Melchior »

Gary Childress wrote:
I'm familiar with some of our nation's history. Again, your statement above is pretty cryptic. And I'm not sure how it bears relation to your apparent distaste for Noam Chomsky's political writings. Maybe if you articulated your beliefs such that they are comprehensible by those who can't mind read it might help. Really that's all I ask, Melchior. I'm perfectly open to new ideas or new knowledge if it exists and I'll admit my errors. But you have to be the one to make your points and back them up with evidence or good reasons. That's the way good philosophers operate. You're smart. Surely you can do that?
Chomsky (in common with many philosophers teaching in colleges) uses fallacies. Philosophers know all the fallacies, but the general public and callow youth do not recognize them. They deliberately use fallacious arguments and can depend on not being caught by most people. I quote from Chomsky here:

"So if the United States ends up being almost universally isolated on Iran, that won’t be anything particularly new, and in fact there are quite a few other cases. Well, in the case of Iran, the reasons for U.S. concerns are very clearly and repeatedly articulated: Iran is the gravest threat to world peace. We hear that regularly from high places—government officials, commentators, others—in the United States. There also happens to be a world out there, and it has its own opinions. It’s quite easy to find these out from standard sources, like the main U.S. polling agency. Gallup polls takes regular polls of international opinion. And one of the questions it posed—it’s posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan—it’s inflated, surely, by the Indian vote—and then a couple of others. Iran is mentioned, but along with Israel and a few others, way down. That’s one of the things that it wouldn’t do to say, and in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. But it doesn’t go away for that reason."


This is a blatant fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Using such a standard fallacy is beneath contempt. Now do you get it? Do you understand why Chomsky is a scumbag?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8120
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gary Childress »

Melchior wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
I'm familiar with some of our nation's history. Again, your statement above is pretty cryptic. And I'm not sure how it bears relation to your apparent distaste for Noam Chomsky's political writings. Maybe if you articulated your beliefs such that they are comprehensible by those who can't mind read it might help. Really that's all I ask, Melchior. I'm perfectly open to new ideas or new knowledge if it exists and I'll admit my errors. But you have to be the one to make your points and back them up with evidence or good reasons. That's the way good philosophers operate. You're smart. Surely you can do that?
Chomsky (in common with many philosophers teaching in colleges) uses fallacies. Philosophers know all the fallacies, but the general public and callow youth do not recognize them. They deliberately use fallacious arguments and can depend on not being caught by most people. I quote from Chomsky here:

"So if the United States ends up being almost universally isolated on Iran, that won’t be anything particularly new, and in fact there are quite a few other cases. Well, in the case of Iran, the reasons for U.S. concerns are very clearly and repeatedly articulated: Iran is the gravest threat to world peace. We hear that regularly from high places—government officials, commentators, others—in the United States. There also happens to be a world out there, and it has its own opinions. It’s quite easy to find these out from standard sources, like the main U.S. polling agency. Gallup polls takes regular polls of international opinion. And one of the questions it posed—it’s posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan—it’s inflated, surely, by the Indian vote—and then a couple of others. Iran is mentioned, but along with Israel and a few others, way down. That’s one of the things that it wouldn’t do to say, and in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. But it doesn’t go away for that reason."


This is a blatant fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Using such a standard fallacy is beneath contempt. Now do you get it? Do you understand why Chomsky is a scumbag?
Thank you.

I will hear you out, however, before I respond further, would you please tell me:

1. Where did you find the passage so I can see the larger context.

2. would you be so kind as to tell me exactly what argument you believe Chomsky is advancing in the passage above that would make it an argumentum ad populum? In other words, are you saying Chomsky is here arguing something along the lines of:

Most people in the world view the US as the gravest threat to world peace, therefore the US is the gravest threat to world peace.

Or are you coming at it from a different angle than that, which maybe I'm not seeing.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8120
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gary Childress »

Scratch off question #1. I found the source, I believe.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/22/n ... states_not

That leaves question #2.
would you be so kind as to tell me exactly what argument you believe Chomsky is advancing in the passage above that would make it an argumentum ad populum?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8120
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gary Childress »

Honestly, Melchior, you're not going to like what I have to say but I don't think Chomsky can be accused of committing an argumentum ad populum here. He appears to be citing a number of facts (somewhat like a newspaper reporter might) but I don't see where he is stating any sort of conclusion based upon those facts. The fact that international opinion sees the US as the greatest threat to world peace doesn't appear to be supporting or otherwise linked to a conclusion in the passage you've given. I think you are reading more into the passage than is there.

I believe the statement concerning international opinion could be simply a "report." Looking at my old college logic book this is what it says on statements which comprise what it calls "reports".
A report consists of a group of statements that convey information about some
topic or event. Example:
Even though more of the world is immunized than ever before, many old diseases
have proven quite resilient in the face of changing population and environmental
conditions, especially in the developing world. New diseases, such as AIDS,
have taken their toll in both the North and the South.
(Steven L. Spiegel, World Politics in a New Era)
These statements could serve as the premises of an argument; but because the author
makes no claim that they support or imply anything, there is no argument
. Another
type of report is the news report:
A powerful car bomb blew up outside the regional telephone company headquarters
in Medellin, injuring 25 people and causing millions of dollars of damage to
nearby buildings, police said. A police statement said the 198-pound bomb was
packed into a milk churn hidden in the back of a stolen car.
(Newspaper clipping)
Again, because the reporter makes no claim that these statements imply anything,
there is no argument.
Source: A Concise Introduction to Logic, 7th ed., by Patrick Hurley, p. 17

If there's no argument being advanced, then I don't see how it can be an argumentum ad populum. If anything the statement concerning international opinion could be an aside, like "by the way, international opinion is..." or it could be part of a larger argument he is building out of the rest of the transcript on the page (meaning it's not his only supporting premise).

Overall Chomsky generally argues that the US is hypocritical in its policies, applying standards to other countries that our country itself doesn't meet. I believe (though I'm not 100% sure of my memory) Chomsky has made statements such that the US is the world's largest terror state and that we are the biggest threat to world peace, however, most of the evidence I have ever seen Chomsky use to support these conclusions involve citing:

1.) the definitions and critieria commentators in the US typically use of "terror state" and "threat to world peace"

and then:

2.) apply those very same definitions and criteria to our own behavior.

In other words Chomsky is not saying we are the biggest threat to world peace per se he is saying that by our own definitions and criteria we are the biggest threat to world peace. There is a difference, believe it or not. It's actually a very nuanced position.
Last edited by Gary Childress on Tue May 17, 2016 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Melchior »

Gary Childress wrote:Scratch off question #1. I found the source, I believe.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/22/n ... states_not

That leaves question #2.
would you be so kind as to tell me exactly what argument you believe Chomsky is advancing in the passage above that would make it an argumentum ad populum?
The first line reads:

"In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace."

He cites opinions as support for his position......

Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war


{Edited by iMod]
Gary Childress
Posts: 8120
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gary Childress »

Melchior wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:Scratch off question #1. I found the source, I believe.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/22/n ... states_not

That leaves question #2.
would you be so kind as to tell me exactly what argument you believe Chomsky is advancing in the passage above that would make it an argumentum ad populum?
The first line reads:

"In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace."

He cites opinions as support for his position......
One thing to note is that Chomsky probably didn't write that blurb. The reporters or website owner did. If you look in the actual transcript I don't see where he makes the statement that "the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace." I see where he uses the term "rogue state" but he uses the term in the same way many high profile pundits in the US do, to describe states that run around causing a great deal of trouble and mayhem in the world [my attempt to paraphrase not Chomsky's exact words, of course].
Gary Childress
Posts: 8120
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gary Childress »

Melchior wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:Scratch off question #1. I found the source, I believe.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/22/n ... states_not

That leaves question #2.
would you be so kind as to tell me exactly what argument you believe Chomsky is advancing in the passage above that would make it an argumentum ad populum?
Damn you are dense....

The first line reads:

"In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace."

He cites opinions as support for his position......

Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war
BTW did you completely ignore my post directly above containing the quote out of a basic logic text book? I think you are reading into Chomsky what you want to see and missing very nuanced positions and arguments. You assume Chomsky is stupid so you pull stupid things out of Chomsky's text and miss completely what he is saying.
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Melchior »

Israel is supposed to have sent assassins into Iran to kill nuclear scientists. Your opinion?

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/I ... nts-411473

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/201 ... l-nbc-news
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Melchior »

Gary Childress wrote:
He cites opinions as support for his position......

Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war
BTW did you completely ignore my post directly above containing the quote out of a basic logic text book? I think you are reading into Chomsky what you want to see and missing very nuanced positions and arguments. You assume Chomsky is stupid so you pull stupid things out of Chomsky's text and miss completely what he is saying.[/quote]

Nuanced? You mean devious, don't you? You need to read the book.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8120
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gary Childress »

Melchior wrote:Israel is supposed to have sent assassins into Iran to kill nuclear scientists. Your opinion?

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/I ... nts-411473

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/201 ... l-nbc-news
Well let's take Chomsky as our news reporter and try to figure out why Iran wants nuclear weapons in the first place. Citing from the article you got your alleged argumentum ad populum from (3rd to last paragraph):
So, turning to that, what actually is the threat posed by Iran? Plainly, it’s not a military threat. That’s obvious. We can put aside the fevered pronouncements about Iranian aggression, support for terror, seeking hegemony over the region by force, or the still more outlandish notion that even if Iran had a bomb, it might use it, therefore suffering instant obliteration. The real threat has been clearly explained by U.S. intelligence in its reports to Congress on the global security situation. Of course, they deal with Iran. And they point out—I’m quoting U.S. intelligence—"Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy." Right? It’s part of Iran’s deterrent strategy—no offensive policies, but they are trying to construct a deterrent. And that Iran has a serious interest in a deterrent strategy is not in doubt among serious analysts. It’s recognized, for example, by U.S. intelligence. So the influential analyst, CIA veteran Bruce Riedel, who’s by no means a dove, he writes that "If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons" as a deterrent. And the reasons are pretty obvious.
In other words Iran is seeking a deterrent against being bullied and manipulated by western powers, not a first strike weapon. Our own intelligence reports apparently say this.

So tell me Melchior, by what right or principle are nations allowed to assassinate scientists of another nation? Why don't you tell me and we can look at that right or principle and see if it inversely applies to other nations as well. Does Iran have a right to send assassins into Israel to kill nuclear scientists? What would Israel's response be? They would probably (rightly) denounce it as an act of terror. Based on our own criteria of what "terrorism" entails I would say Israel is engaging in terrorism. Wouldn't you?
Last edited by Gary Childress on Tue May 17, 2016 3:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Melchior »

Gary Childress wrote:
Melchior wrote:Israel is supposed to have sent assassins into Iran to kill nuclear scientists. Your opinion?

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/I ... nts-411473

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/201 ... l-nbc-news
Well let's take Chomsky as our news reporter and try to figure out why Iran wants nuclear weapons in the first place. Citing from the article you got your alleged argumentum ad populum from (3rd to last paragraph):
So, turning to that, what actually is the threat posed by Iran? Plainly, it’s not a military threat. That’s obvious. We can put aside the fevered pronouncements about Iranian aggression, support for terror, seeking hegemony over the region by force, or the still more outlandish notion that even if Iran had a bomb, it might use it, therefore suffering instant obliteration. The real threat has been clearly explained by U.S. intelligence in its reports to Congress on the global security situation. Of course, they deal with Iran. And they point out—I’m quoting U.S. intelligence—"Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy." Right? It’s part of Iran’s deterrent strategy—no offensive policies, but they are trying to construct a deterrent. And that Iran has a serious interest in a deterrent strategy is not in doubt among serious analysts. It’s recognized, for example, by U.S. intelligence. So the influential analyst, CIA veteran Bruce Riedel, who’s by no means a dove, he writes that "If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons" as a deterrent. And the reasons are pretty obvious.
So tell me Melchior, by what right or principle are nations allowed to assassinate scientists of another nation? Why don't you tell me and we can look at that right or principle and see if it inversely applies to other nations as well. Does Iran have a right to send assassins into Israel to kill nuclear scientists? What would Israel's response be? They would probably (rightly) denounce it as an act of terror. Based on our own criteria of what "terrorism" entails I would say Israel is engaging in terrorism. Wouldn't you?
No, not at all. Read the book!
Gary Childress
Posts: 8120
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gary Childress »

Melchior wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
Melchior wrote:Israel is supposed to have sent assassins into Iran to kill nuclear scientists. Your opinion?

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/I ... nts-411473

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/201 ... l-nbc-news
Well let's take Chomsky as our news reporter and try to figure out why Iran wants nuclear weapons in the first place. Citing from the article you got your alleged argumentum ad populum from (3rd to last paragraph):
So, turning to that, what actually is the threat posed by Iran? Plainly, it’s not a military threat. That’s obvious. We can put aside the fevered pronouncements about Iranian aggression, support for terror, seeking hegemony over the region by force, or the still more outlandish notion that even if Iran had a bomb, it might use it, therefore suffering instant obliteration. The real threat has been clearly explained by U.S. intelligence in its reports to Congress on the global security situation. Of course, they deal with Iran. And they point out—I’m quoting U.S. intelligence—"Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy." Right? It’s part of Iran’s deterrent strategy—no offensive policies, but they are trying to construct a deterrent. And that Iran has a serious interest in a deterrent strategy is not in doubt among serious analysts. It’s recognized, for example, by U.S. intelligence. So the influential analyst, CIA veteran Bruce Riedel, who’s by no means a dove, he writes that "If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons" as a deterrent. And the reasons are pretty obvious.
So tell me Melchior, by what right or principle are nations allowed to assassinate scientists of another nation? Why don't you tell me and we can look at that right or principle and see if it inversely applies to other nations as well. Does Iran have a right to send assassins into Israel to kill nuclear scientists? What would Israel's response be? They would probably (rightly) denounce it as an act of terror. Based on our own criteria of what "terrorism" entails I would say Israel is engaging in terrorism. Wouldn't you?
No, not at all. Read the book!
I see. So when Israel sends people to kill Iranian nuclear scientists it's not "terrorism" but if Iran sends their people to kill Israeli scientists it would be? My question to you is: would it be perfectly legit for Iran to reciprocate?

Note: As far as reading your book you recommend I have a sneaking suspicion it's not going to tell me anything I didn't already know.
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Melchior »

Gary Childress wrote:
Note: As far as reading your book you recommend I have a sneaking suspicion it's not going to tell me anything I didn't already know.
No further replies from me until you read the book.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8120
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gary Childress »

Melchior wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
Note: As far as reading your book you recommend I have a sneaking suspicion it's not going to tell me anything I didn't already know.
No further replies from me until you read the book.
Now you're just pulling a stunt. I have been articulating my position on things without requiring you to go read anything but what I post. If you can't articulate your position in the same reciprocal manner then you need to re-read that book yourself. You should be able to put it in your own words. You are making an unreasonable demand.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Melchior wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:Scratch off question #1. I found the source, I believe.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/22/n ... states_not

That leaves question #2.
would you be so kind as to tell me exactly what argument you believe Chomsky is advancing in the passage above that would make it an argumentum ad populum?
Damn you are dense....

The first line reads:

"In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace."

He cites opinions as support for his position......

Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war
Isn't he just stating the obvious there? It's not exactly rocket science.
Post Reply