[–] BoiseNTheHood 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
It's not a matter of "needing to believe." He is delusional. He lies and revises history. He makes every excuse for repressive Communist dictatorships, but blames the West for anything that ever goes wrong. He's the type of guy who will cite the Khmer Rouge to make the case that they didn't genocide anyone, but then write off any pro-Western data as being propaganda, without a hint of irony. Again, he's a genius in his actual field of linguistics, but when it comes to political analysis, he's a half-step above the average /r/conspiracy poster.
He is rarely ever cited in political science, a field that is full of extreme leftists. When even they think he's too much of a crazy ideologue to take seriously, that should tell you something.
[–] Kurplow 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You certainly have an interesting perspective Boise. I feel like we could have a few beers and argue about literally everything.
I find it hard to look at a man who is obviously very intelligent, who thinks well about--and has his thoughts celebrated internationally--on a certain subject, and imagine that his thinking on other subjects is so poor, so deluded that, if I disagree, I can just write him off as equivalent to an internet conspiracy theorist. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Andrew Wiles all have their specialties, but if any one of them wanted to talk to me about political science, I would hesitate to write their opinions off as deluded, regardless of whether I might disagree. These are all highly intelligent, learned men who make a living by thinking carefully. If we disagree, and I conclude they are wrong, either I'm convinced that I think better on the subject than they do, or I'm so invested in the belief that I just can't divest of it.
[–] BoiseNTheHood ago
So do you. I'd win most of the arguments, though. :)
Think of it this way. Ben Carson was an absolute genius neurosurgeon. He separated conjoined twins. He revived and modernized the practice of hemispherectomy, a procedure that controls severe epilepsy in infants. He figured out how to treat trigeminal neuralgia, a condition that makes people suffer from such severe facial pain that they consider suicide. He became the youngest director of a major division at Johns Hopkins at age 33. He's authored hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and multiple best-selling books. The guy was an innovator in his field. That being said, does his success in neurosurgery give credence to his wacky Seventh-day Adventist ramblings?
Likewise, Chomsky is a great linguist. Does that mean he should get a pass for fringe views like denying the Khmer Genocide, writing off Mao's planned famines as "policy failures," and defending Holocaust deniers?