Chomsky's 'proofs '
Sir : Shirley Letwin (13 February) believes Chomsky has proved no- thing 'because no scientific theory offers "proof" '. This is a misunder- standing of the nature of science. Someone who invents a scientific theory, on one hand proves theo- rems within the theory, and on the other argues that the theory is an appropriate model of some aspect of the world. This is what Newton did for physics, and it is what Chomsky has done for language. It is true that Chomsky's theory may be replaced by a new one, as New- ton's was by Einstein's; something that is not vulnerable in this way is 'not a scientific theory.
Far from suggesting that a for- mal analysis of human language would mean that computers could
be programmed to speak, Chom- sky's theory explicitly contradicts this commonly-held notion. Al- though Miss Letwin feels that the inadequacy of behaviourism 'comes as no great shock to literate men', scholars such as Russell, Bloom- field, and Skinner have insisted and still insist that behaviourism is ade- quate: Chomsky is very much in the minority here.
For Chomsky, according to Miss Letwin, because 'men are ... full of intricate innate capabilities, it fol- lows that all authority is not only unnecessary but destructive'. If Chomsky really argues in this way, I was indeed too kind to him. I do not criticise Chomsky's philosophy for being consistent with his poli- tics, as Barbara Smoker suggests (20 February); but when Chomsky's political views are as foolish as they are, it is reasonable to ask whether his philosophy has been influenced by them.
Previous page
