Can we trust Noam Chomsky? Why doesn't he write a real book?
535049
Chomksy has written numerous real books.  You should try his 'Hegemony or Survival'.  It's relatively short, not a series of transcribed interviews, and gives a good overview of recent world events from a non-USA centred perspective.  I also think it does a good job of demonstrating the double standards of the American elite, but then I'm not a True American...   \n\nAs far as errors go, I'm sure Chomsky himself would be happy to acknowledge any genuine factual errors in his ouevre, but interpretations of events are a lot more subjective.
943912
What is axiomatic need not be proved by experience. The data collected only confirms the fact.\n\nThe previous answerer 'libido' sounds like a drop out from the degree college. She does not have elementary knowledge of epistemology and by just quoting Socrates and M.N. Roy an unknown Indian Marxist,  one just can not address such serious issues.\n\n 'Empiricism', 'Truth' and 'Blasphemy' are very ambiguous words and unless one is sure about its philosophic connotation, the debate can not proceed. Rather, we will be landing in total confusion using high sounding words with the least regard to the grammatical norms. 'libido' who loves to brag as a 'rationalist' to please take care of the grammar while framing sentences in English. It is certainly not a proletarian platform for the pseudo Marxists! It is a bourgeoisie club to exchange novel ideas and not ignorance. Beware!
388081
Well, i read an autobiography of Buzz Aldrin's of his walk to the moon (in a literature textbook), and it sounded pretty real. Why would Buzz Aldrin lie about something like that?
1057973
You mean "Noam" Chomsky I assume...\n\nIf so, best way now if to go to MIT and take Linguistics...
91718
yes I do think they should all be published. \nwhen a scientist comes up with a hypothesis and tests his hypothesis, the only way to see how "correct" it is, is for other people to copy his experiment. this is how today's theories came about--it is how all future theories will come about. if no one publishes their work, who would test it?\n\nif everyone is worried about anything getting into the hands of terrorists, no one would publish anything. you couldn't even email anyone or talk on Yahoo answers even....everyone else has access to these things. terrorists could be using the answers you give to other people. why worry????  just something to think about!
846817
Yes, the concept is illusion, you need action to make it real.  And some concepts are fallacious; you can understand it but it is not truth.  Others concepts may be truth for some but not for you.   For example, if it goes against your basic values.   Imagine a capitalist trying to live as a socialist, for lack of a better example.
626273
Entertaining and inspiring read, while perhaps not the work of genius that it has been called.\n\nWhat struck me as really weird: the intro to each chapter is made from quotes claiming how brilliant and extraordinary the author is. Kind of weird to put something like that in one's own book...
517394
The second edition is very good.  So, I read all of the above and I have way too much in my head to try and type it all here.  All I will say is I have no "conspiracy theory."  I have questions...many, many questions.  "Loose Change" does just the same thing, asks questions.  I'm going to a conference put on by Alex Jones next month in Los Angeles and the young guys that made "Loose Change" will be there, as well.  It should be interesting.\nThe Popular Mechanics article is bunk.  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1006051612475&pa=FZB6NXXtFWMW0cLWwu4T8Vz6aiAvUt4M43cHcOeaifCbrDhBhhA- (My rebuttle.)
635503
because he is an amazing writer. i have never read anyone else that even came close to him. and if anyone else has please message me and let me know bc id love to read their stuff :). his work is so shocking and such a sarcastic look at our society. i cant get enough of his work.
756441
The quote is from Descartes' 'Discourse on Method'\n\nThe general idea is that he questions what he knows.  Assume that a grand deciever was capable of changing all you percieve (picture the Matrix etc, where something could make you see, smell etc things that aren't really there).   \n\nThe question is what can you trust.  The first assumption he makes is that no matter what 'reality' is,  the fact that he can consider his own existience, then he exists in some fashion.  'I think,  therefore I am'.  Even if he's decieved about everything,  he can trust that part. \n\nDescartes then goes on to prove the existence of god.   Quite an interesting book.
828246
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media\n\nhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12972.htm
887648
in order to burn the book u got to first buy the book kinda defeats the purpose. I agree he is scum!!!!!!!!!\n\nkh
921021
im guessing this was inspired by me\n\n:) just kidding of course\n\nthough the guy who sells me used batteries on the train seems well versed in the existentialist philiosophies of albert camus "An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. "
1055582
Read ten of his essays, and ask yourself if Mr. Chomsky is important to you, and to others. If you are very lazy, or just curious, you can also take a look a the link posted below.
1169125
Too advanced for them to read. Does it come as a book on tape? Maybe then.. But I don't think Neocons read.  They just chew on the books when they are done chewing on the last peice of future that is left for the children of this country.
782124
I haven't read any of his books, but as a regular viewer, I will say that sometimes he is indeed a moron.... but other times, he can be quite sensible.\n\nI think that his problem is in the delivery of the message, rather than the message itself, as he comes across as a chronically angry individual.
793732
Hawking's is elevated in the liberal community as a near diety when in actuality his viability as an on-going human concern is questionable. I have little use for people that worship him or for that matter him as well. He spews the commie line of crap, and because he is a "supposed" genius fish bite it hook, line and sinker. \n\nMy rule, never trust someone drools except fo your dog. \n\nRationality is the premise that everything can be explained through rational thought, and I beg to differ. Many things in this word cannot be reduced to the level he proposes. Maybe he can in his vegetative state, I see him as a man fearful of his own destiny.