Not in the field, but I perceive #Chomsky's enduring influence as positive. Do you disagree?
In your OP you asked if it was beneficial to have a curator (which I think means dictator in this context). I answered why I think it's not.
-
-
I don't agree with your conflation. I DO agree, however, that in as much as any curator will be biased (because, human), best to have many.
-
So many is... just like every other field within a single curator, right?
-
So you're agreeing linguistics was/is pathological when in the grip of a single curator/dictator because they are inevitably biased?
-
I don't know if linguistics is more pathological than any other discipline, I simply envy it for Chomsky's insight.
-
I'm telling you it was and still is.
-
Obviously, our opinions can differ and I respect that but you asked for mine and for some reading, to which I obliged.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also you tend to assume people in a field control who is at the top. A PhD student in linguistics did not chose who is at the top of their
-
field. So if they disagree they get pushed/downed out and only the PhDs who kowtow get promoted. Nothing is as simple as we have "chosen".
-
And this why people quote "science progresses one funeral/retirement at a time" because of how exceedingly difficult it is to get senior
-
academics to release their (in many cases stranglehold) grip on a discipline.
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.
