Chomsky vs. Buckley *Complete Interview* Part 3

Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Macromedia's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.
Chomsky vs. Buckley *Complete Interview* Part 3

Part 3 of the interview/debate

Author: Chomskyan
Length: 06:18
Uploaded: 12.8.2007
Viewed: 47017×
Rating (101×):
4.894.894.894.894.89


Video Category: People & Blogs
Tags: Noam Chomsky Buckley Firing Line Vietnam war terrorism debate interview
viloloco52.1.2009
Hey timleebee; once you sequestrate yourself from [science], and connote a group of people with a pejorative tone [liberals], it sort of gives people a quick glimpse at how anit-intellec​tual you are, not to mention, smug and bias towards "liberal." That reflect poorly on you. That by it's own merit will be received very strongly among the rationalist who do —by great majority— adhere to the principles of science.
drainey327982.1.2009
timleebee. You wrote "...about 55 percent of scientists come down on the side of Darwinism or macro-evoluti​on." Could you provide me with your authority for this statement? Do you mean all scientists or U.S. scientists? What kind of scientists are included in the study?
drainey327982.1.2009
I was wondering if you had evidence for your belief that there is not perfect unanimity among experts regarding viet kong terrorism. note - Chomsky qualifies his overstatement​ at 2:45 in the clip, and mentions Dennis Warner, Bernard Fall, Douglass Pike, and pacification manuals/aid documents quoted in his book to support his statement.
timleebee26.12.2008
The sheer number of textbooks agreeing with evolution and the lack of any textbooks which question it supports my thinking on this matter. The textbooks are out there but not chosen by most if any public schools. If all the textbooks say it, then all textbook writers (scientists) must believe it.
timleebee26.12.2008
The man did not lie. But the facts are that about 55 percent of scientists come down on the side of Darwinism or macro-evoluti​on. But the often repeated rhetoric and common thought on the matter among the masses is that almost all scientists are macro-evoluti​onists and only a few even dare to question it. If you say something loud and long enough people will believe it.
timleebee26.12.2008
Alright I'll give you an example. Of course, looking at it the way I do is a matter of choice. Nonetheless here it is. Let's start with a premise - that many liberals come down on the side of Darwinism, macro-evoluti​on, big-bang and so on. During Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debates I have heard a Darwinist say, and I loosely quote, that "Such matters are agreed upon by the majority of scientists" regarding some "fact" of evolution. This is deceiving.
drainey3279826.12.2008
Yes, i think generalization is a more apt description. And I'm sure you believe it to be true. However, i'm interested in whether you have evidence for your belief. If you do not, then i am not interested in your belief, nor should anyone else be.
timleebee22.12.2008
How by any standard was I making an overstatement? I might have made a generalization and one I believe to be true but not an overstatement​.
goalposthead7928.12.2008
buckley is clear in his prejudice on every point discussed here, whether genuine or contrived. i think chomsky does well to retain his composure... im not sure i could in dealing with such a smarmy interviewer
viloloco52.1.2009
Whether you believe in evolution or in the fairy god mother of earth, is mere subjection.

Most popular tags