"Noam Chomsky Is An Infinitely Better Scientist Than Richard Dawkins, Intellectually & Morally - And An Infinitely Better Atheist" - RWS

"Noam Chomsky is an infinitely better Scientist than Richard Dawkins, intellectually & morally - and an infinitely better Atheist" - RWS

Chomsky puts Science and Mystery in Perspective


Published: February 16, 2011


During my university days, something strange happened to myself and many of my fellow students. A kind of world weariness set in. Strange indeed for teenagers and twenty somethings. But there it was. For us, the world appeared to hold no surprises and not too much of interest.

Why did nothing surprise us? The answer is that we believed that science either had all the answers, or at least would very shortly. We also thought that human beings were a very predictable species and, finally, we thought religion and culture were pure bio-chemical epiphenomena.

For many of us this first changed on reading Noam Chomsky.  As such, I think his significance as a scientist and for me personally, remains, even if his theories prove false.  His influence will remain long after his science is gone. Whether or not language is innate and whether there is a Universal Grammar or not; whether or not the mind is modular or even whether or not language has a context-free grammar; it does not matter.

Chomsky remains a great scientist because he brought back the wonder of enquiry and the beauty of mystery.
His first achievement was his realisation that science didn't merely try to predict future events. Chomsky thought science tried to explain events. Any mere catalog of facts wasn't good enough, without explanation it was worthless.

He thus restored some of the excitement of discovery; reminding us that scientific enquiry began with wonder and amazement and resulted in appreciation and even more wonder.

Next, when asked how his linguistic theory would be compatible with Darwinian evolution, Chomsky would reply that he didn't know. He would then go a step further and suggest that the evolution of the cognitive capacity of human beings remains shrouded in mystery. Natural selection is no more plausible an explanation than any other.

Chomsky would say that scientific questions divided into problems and mysteries. Problems were the type of enquiry that involved a very clear and precise question to be answered. A mystery was an enquiry where we cannot even frame our question clearly, when dealing with a mystery we do not even really know what we are looking for.

Thus whereas setting out to cure cancer is trying to pierce through the shroud of mystery, resolving the question to something precise such as trying to develop a vaccine against the HPV virus, is to change something from mystery to mere problem. And modern science deals with problems not mysteries.

Chomsky's political views developed from this attitude because he believes human affairs remain impenetrable to science, they are shrouded in mystery. This does not mean reason cannot be used but the methods of modern science clearly can not.

Whether or not the details are correct, Chomsky taught us that mystery is always present. Even if a science of human affairs did exist, it would not change the fact that beyond the boundary of what we know, wherever that boundary is drawn, there is and always will be mystery.

Even though science develops, it does not reduce the amount of mystery present in the world. It doesn't take us closer to some final goal, a point where all enquiry will cease. Why not? Because the things we don't know are completely mysterious. We cannot count what we cannot distinguish.

There is no doubt Chomsky belief's make him a better scientist. It is liberating to the imagination and reason to permit mystery to exist side by side with understanding. Not being bogged down by the narrow constraints of behaviourism or Darwinism freed Chomsky’s considerable intellectual gifts. This enabled him to progress further than anyone before towards an explanation of human cognition.

Chomsky's attitude is scarcely more than common sense and there's no doubt my interpretation is parochial. But as students we certainly needed reminding that there are many things about which we haven't got a clue.

Simon Rowney is a CathNews reader who blogs from Corrimal, NSW.



Views: 2389

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Thank you David, I'll try & do that - if you do the same.
This has nothing to do with Dawkins. Comparing scientists, especially ones in different fields is comparing apples to oranges. Dawkins is a scientist of evolutionary biology, not the evolution of language. And I have never seen Chomsky say that language didn't evolve (since it, factually and demonstratably did and does [isn't that the beauty? A dead language is by definition one that no longer evolves. Latin branched off into French when mixed with Gaul, etc, but Latin is used because it itself stopped evolving and so all scientists can use it without misunderstanding, doctors as well] English evolved into American and is still evolving to this day as we add new words by the page). Whether language evolved or not is not a debate, it's fact. And Dawkins is an amazing scientist. Get off his probervial nutsac. Just sayin'!
I'll "get off his proverbial nutsac" if he gets off the "proverbial nutsac" of people with religious persuasions. His irrational & unscientific stance regarding religion & religious people does a disservice both to science & other scientists.

The best thing  you did here is making that wonderful title which is really attractive to the reader ; apart from that

, your article is full of flaws .... which I hope that they are not intentional...

you quoted some '' sayings' '  from Chomsky  which are in fact just examples , famous examples , that he used to support his theory.

If you were really paying attention to what Chomsky says in his works you wouldn't make such mistakes .

 by the way , it's hard to compare Chosmky and Dawkins but it's not fair to say that one is better than the other; you could have used  better words !!!

If I was a "Moral Relativist", I would be reluctant to use the words "better" or "fair".


But I'm a "Moral Realist", so I will use them.


As to the article, it was not written by myself, but by a Catholic believer who was simply expressing a personal view - not writing a scientific treatise.


Because of that, there were inevitable "flaws", but I think the article was an honest endeavour & sincerely written more 'from the heart' than 'from the head'.


And because of that, I dreamed up the title - which I am delighted you think was "wonderful" - thanks - it's nice to get a bit of praise for once here, instead of the constant abuse (by some).

No Michel, I just like winding you up - it's so easy - like taking candy from a baby ;)

Mr Rowney's contribution IS "connected" to Richard Dawkins - for those with eyes to see it. When I read it, parts of it reminded me powerfully of Dawkins - so that's why I thought it might be interest to others here...obviously not you.
People have peculiar ideas on a range of subjects Adriana - including myself. I'm not particularly interested in Rowney's "attitude" to controversial, complex 'grey' areas of morality.

I just thought Rowney's article on Chomsky was really interesting - and wanted to share it here, as it reminded me of Dawkins.

I wasn't expecting 'WW3', but it is turning into that for certain people here.

Life's too short - we should try & make life less difficult for each other. I will be reluctant to post anything here again in the future.

I...uh...how can not beleive in something better then someone else?

Hmm well in my opinion Richard Dawkins is a great narrator and as a coincidence i just stumbled on this interview on the Big Think website.

He talks about this same subject , evolution and such, not who is better :)

I added the video here on TA.



I can so not collect stamps better than you can not collect stamps. Neener Neener.

Arguing with fools make you look foolish. 


I work in Harlem. I work with a lot of special needs kids, who are NEVER wrong. They never do anything bad, they always have a justification, and they are always willing to tell you the exact OPPOSITE of what just happened in order to get out of trouble. 


At this point, we realize there is no dissuading Richard. We understand that. He's the resident troll/fool/deluded person. So why are you wasting intellectual energy trying to get him to admit he's wrong? At this point, I'm questioning everyone else's sanity. Take a step back, a deep breath, and just... ignore. There is no reason this guy's "discussions" should be contributing to the top ten of our boards, nevermind #1. Come on.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service