Steven Pinker asks Noam Chomsky a question

23 thoughts on “Steven Pinker asks Noam Chomsky a question”

1. amazing minds right here

2. didn't understand the question, but what he said about novelty physics problem solving was embarrassingly wrong.

3. The math is already there, The brain uses statistics in form of stress. You can avoid math in your models only if you use premolded blocks.

   How enginners do a basic lowpass filter to alter a reproduced sound? They add a capacitor in the wire to the speakers. The math is there, but you don't need it to make the filter work.
   How do programmers the same filter: The sound records are not sulpted in solids, the sound waves are encoded. You need strong math (Fourier, I suppose) to transform the data before convert it to waves.

4. Wow. Yannis Varoufakis said roughly the same thing about the pure economics models with their lack of relation to real world economics, in a later discussion with Noam Chomsky on the state and mechanics of the European Union.
   Another eye opener.

5. But what does he say on Bosnia?

6. Is it just me, or is Pinker's use of the word 'narrative' grating on the nerves?

7. Dear god this man is a blow hard. But he uses it to good comedic effect.

8. so this is how smart people talk.

9. The difference between me and Chomsky is that any one can understand what I am saying.

10. is that DR GOLDSTEINBERG?

11. lexicon

12. Chomsky has a point. He takes science to be about understanding how a phenomenon takes place, rather than about merely predicting when and how it will take place again. Most people say shucks to understanding phenomena: predicting is all they need.
    (And that is one more statistically observable fact.)

13. Chomsky basically summarized the state of machine learning perfectly. We are getting these statistical models that are becoming more and more accurate in prediction/classifying previously unseen examples. However, what we are getting are approximate models to human counterparts. It's more of an engineering solution where we can use these machines/models to build useful applications.

    However, we are no closer to understanding how human brain works.

14. who asks the question, "ill let you complete the sentence" ? thats not a question

15. Agree or disagree with the great Chomsky, at least acknowledge that he engages, openly and honestly and diligently. It's simply an overwhelmingly impressive commitment to knowledge absorption and public education. Perhaps this type of forum (youtube and publicly shared lectures, q/a, interviews) will popularize the next generation of 100 Chomsky's, of all political leanings.

16. Pinker stumbles a bit because of nausea…he was with Chomsky, and that would make anyone sick.

17. Full vid: https://youtu.be/JtbgghTqVOs

18. Noam is a pure dumbass

19. Pinker is asking if chomsky's theory will be of use in the future, because unlike the new theories (big data), it has no statistiks and propability in it. Chomsky answers that statistics and propabilities are too superficial and that you can't get understanding out of it (only statistically data), and that it is therefore not very usefull. Pinker framed his question in a weird way, but he wanted to kind of embarras Chomsky, because he thinks his theory is a failure. But Pinker embarrast himself.

20. The character and integrity of Chonsky is well displayed here. Pinker basically says "chomskys wrong because of all the fancy advances the charlatan scholarly class – would be media celebrities like ME PINKER have made." Listen to Chonsky ignore the insult of having to answer questions fro.the likes of Pinker in Chonskys field and notice his integrity in putting that nonsense aside and educating the viewer so superbly on the topic. I could not have had the self restraint or dignity myself. Heres the deal Pinkee attacks and makes a career of misrepresenting Chomky's political and scientific work. Pinker hitches his careerist ambitions of being a "linguistics or cognative scientist" having refuted Chomsky's work. This is hopeless nonsense. If you want a taste of the real Pinker – the pathology of his ambitions and narcissism – view his disgust using attack on Chomsky and his constant lying about Mr Chomsky and his work (chomsky is not "a Marxist?" Could have fooled me since Chomsky uses Marx"s work extensively in his public comments and obviously they are much o the the same page descriptively. Pinker the quaffed but quite unattractive media persona also says that Chomskys scientific contributions are revered because people are su h fans of his political work. Pinker is not a a scientist. He is a vicious charletan
    To see the real Pinker in action view his comments when cho.sky isnt in the room at
    https://youtu.be/wxZ-NrCohGk

21. wheres the full video

22. Minksy is dead, Chomsky will be soon enough. Pinker will probably be around for awhile. So I guess he wins 😛

23. This comments section seems to have a bias towards Chomsky. Yes, Pinker seemed nervous, and perhaps as a result of nervousness, his question was not as concise as it could have been. Still, he asked a good question, and Chomsky gave a diffuse, long-winded answer that contained a lot of irrelevant information.

Comments are closed.