SamHarris wrote: » Missed the point completly. Oh well. Didnt realise you were one of those Chomsky fan bois. Couldnt be bothered debating anything with people of that... type. Its a religion, not something that can be engaged with rationaly. Ciao.
karma_ wrote: » You are being completely disingenuous in regards to Chomskys academic work and reputation, completely and demonstrably so. For someone throwing about the 'rationality' word, your not exhibiting much of it.
SamHarris wrote: » Christ. His LINGUISTIC academic work is of academic worth. Notice how he did not publish any articles in respected journals that deal with media? Even he is aware in his own way of the intelectual vapidity of his theory. Instead he bipassed the normal methods of establishing new models of media criticism and went striaght to the masses. There are always going to be people that want to believe what he says. This is why there is so little interest in even engaging with his work on an academic level. You can either accept extremly well established media theories, backed up by thousands of articles in numerous journals and endorsed by academics all over the world or you can swallow whole the work of an academic of another discipline, of an extreme political persuasion, with no independent peer reviewed work or even low levels of acceptance within the community. I really don't care which model you choose to endorse, but the choice is clear for anyone concerned with having extreme positions confirmed widely, or at all, by mainstream academics of the discipline before taking it as gospel. You can also be a creationist for all I care, they have similar levels of academic consensus, you can make as many CT's as you want for why that is the fact remains the same. No interest in discussing it further, if you want to make a thread for Chomsky knock yourself out. Or, better yet, read some peer reviewed thoeries and see exactly why they do a far better job of explaining modern media.
karma_ wrote: » It's just as well you have no wish to discuss it further, I'm not exactly sure how deep a hole you were going to dig for yourself.
SamHarris wrote: » Im sure. Im going to go ahead and assume you know just about as much about how academia works as you do about Cuban history
K3lso wrote: » Michael D Higgins is a bonafide idiot. He blamed Austrian Economics for the banking collapse (cringe). Another me feiner is all he is. Labour my arse - he wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
token101 wrote: » Why don't you go up the Aras and set yourself alight to test your theory?
K3lso wrote: » Why would I want to do that? You assume that hobbit in the Park is worth it.
Nodin wrote: » Bit like his namesake, betimes.
SamHarris wrote: » Your welcome to list his published articles on media and politics, in an academic journal, to prove that he is at least concidered an academic in those areas. Ive never found one.
karma_ wrote: » http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Mullen-Klaehn-Sociology-Compass-essay.pdf It's an essay regarding his book - Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media The author certainly considers him relevant.
SamHarris wrote: » An essay on his book!? My god! Move over Samuel Huntington. Ill just wait for his many articles, considering he is such an influential contributer to the field... You really ought to start googling things before jumping in with large assertions. Or, please god, before you whole heartedly subscribe to a what amounts to an opinion piece.
prove that he is at least concidered an academic in those areas
karma_ wrote: » Sam, I'm not going to involve myself in a lengthy debate with you over this because frankly the 4000 new citizens thread is a hell of a lot more entertaining, however... You asked for proof of this - I have shown you an academic paper which shows he is considered relevant academically in both politics and media. Take this one on the chin my friend.
SamHarris wrote: » Ha! Sure, there is an article on the man, That MUST mean he is a repected academic in the field. Im sure there are articles on Rush Limbaugh for christ sake. Your free to post all those articles when you get a chance, Nodin to. Im patient.
karma_ wrote: » Once more, I have shown you that he is considered relevant in both Politics and media, which is what you asked of me. There is no need to list any further articles because it's been conclusively answered.
SamHarris wrote: » :rolleyes: sure. Well Ill let you go.
karma_ wrote: » In fairness, you have little choice.
SamHarris wrote: » Just to point out - a direct quote from your article "the PM has received very little attention within the field of media and communication studies, the wider social sciences"
we would suggest that the PM is even more relevant today than when it was initially advanced.
SamHarris wrote: » Oh so now I said he wasnt relevant in a broad sense? Cute, but no, I said he was not a respected academic in the field who's work was not taken seriously by those that specialise in his hobbies. Your article, one of the very few that bother dealing with his extreme views, fully supported that ascertian.
karma_ wrote: » You did not read the paper fully then, or you somehow missed the conclusion, even though I have quoted it above. Show some grace man, on the chin, none of us can win in every thread, but it's fun to have a go isn't it!
