Not really going to go into this on Twitter. I'm sure there's a lot of more nuanced stuff that I could say already written up by others.
-
-
Will you post/suggest something I could read? The academic culture implications are super interesting to me.
-
I can Google probably just as well as you can, but sure I'll give it a try.
-
The two references in this answer are probably close to what you want: https://www.quora.com/What-are-Noam-Chomskys-most-important-contributions-to-Linguistics/answer/Eric-Meinhardt …
-
I assume you are aware of similar cases to Chomsky which I also assume you think are "bad" periods of the discipline, e.g., Freud & psych.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But obviously I'll give you a rough idea: 1. having a single person in charge of a field isn't really how progress is made;
-
2. a lot of his ideas have been superseded, shown to be misplaced, shown to have diverted linguistics into blind alleys and all this would
-
have been noticed sooner if there was more room at the top, than just a single person, as I am sure you can imagine;
-
This is all a problem of the rest of the field. Can't blame someone if they are blindly adored. You're talking about what other people do.
-
It's interesting you mention blame. Chomsky = linguistics (a field he pretty much created).
-
When you have a leader you can't _just_ blame the followers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.