> Chomsky's greatly damaging influence to linguistics is due to the fact that his speculative and simplistic ... views on how the brain processes and learns language has stifled research in promising fields by decades.
By decades. Really? I think those claims would need better substantiation. Looking back we have a 20/20 hindsight and maybe can say where we took the wrong turn. But can you point out to other budding and promising theories that Chomsky somehow squashed because of, I don't know, his great power or character.
As for politics. Can you explain better and provide some more information. So far it seems, this is just you disagreeing with his politics and then attacking his influence on linguistics as an obvious extension of his political views.
> I think it's time to retire and the "old guard"!
No. You retire, theories that have been proven wrong and bring about theories that explain the reality in a better, more complete, or universal way. You don't retire the "old guard" because you disagree with their food tastes or politics (which seems to be in this case)
By decades. Really? I think those claims would need better substantiation. Looking back we have a 20/20 hindsight and maybe can say where we took the wrong turn. But can you point out to other budding and promising theories that Chomsky somehow squashed because of, I don't know, his great power or character.
As for politics. Can you explain better and provide some more information. So far it seems, this is just you disagreeing with his politics and then attacking his influence on linguistics as an obvious extension of his political views.
> I think it's time to retire and the "old guard"!
No. You retire, theories that have been proven wrong and bring about theories that explain the reality in a better, more complete, or universal way. You don't retire the "old guard" because you disagree with their food tastes or politics (which seems to be in this case)