That Chomsky’s linguistic theories are wrong is not really a problem. At the time he proposed them, careful observation of human language (and especially syntax) was very rare, so it wouldn’t be correct to say the deep structure was impossible out of the box. Indeed, one can make a reasonable argument that Chomsky’s writings launched a revolution in the analysis and understanding of human language – people were attempting to validate his theories and thus set out to see if the facts fit. The audacity of his hypothesis contributed to this revolution in experimental linguistics. This is a significant contribution and should not be devalued, independent of its source.
However, that is where the problem begins: the facts did not fit. And so, as the author describes, Chomsky proceeded to add appendages to his theory to conform to reality, and more an more appendages were added as more facts arose. At some point, an honest scientist would at admit to at least the possibility that he didn’t have things quite right at the foundation, and would seek a reset. Chomsky did not. The most charitable interpretation of his subsequent scientific career is that he moved on to other things.
It is now clear that this behavior was revealing of a fundamental character flaw – the complete inability to let reality intrude on his desires for how things ought to be. The particular nature of those desires – and how those arose – is not the subject of this post. Suffice it to say that Chomsky, like most fundamental thinkers, was heavily influenced by the atrocious state of philosophical thought at the time (and for centuries prior).
And, these same philosophical principles have merged in Chomsky with his methodological idealism (i.e. the notion that “beautiful” theories need not conform to reality), and his dishonest and self-delusional psychology to produce the abominations of his political/social views, and his ignorance of the horror which would ensue were they implemented. Is there any doubt that Chomsky himself would have been one of the first victims of the Khmer Rouge he so lauded? It is only his delusions which can protect him from the recognition of such realities.
