>To what "formal rules" and "propositions/judgements" are you
>referring?
logic and content, if you prefer. i should have added that chomsky thinks final validity rests with the former and values with the latter. this is the distinction he makes re the IQ debate: that it should be possible to claim validity for the former, that is to judge it as a vakid or otherwise form of science, without at the same time attaching any link to the substance of the arguments being made about IQ and race. it was a similar argument chomsky made about why he did the preface to that infamous book: that the research, the science could be judged separately from the substantive claims about the holocaust.
>
>If you mean his theory of universal grammar, I scarcely see how his
>arguments concerning IQ have anything to do with it.
a universal grammar implies the existence of universal rules of speech that are seperable from the content of speech, the propositions. even chomsky tries to separate his science from his politics. none of which i think makes much sense, though i'll say he's consistent.
>Chomsky is not interested per se in the "form" of the argument, that
>is, the logical relation amongst the component parts, he is merely
>trying to get at the assumptions underpinning the argument.
he gets at the assumptions by showing the contradictions in logic, and he counsels a distinction between judgement on the science from judgements on the propositions. he does this time and again.
>I also don't understand what you mean by your claim that Chomsky
>"thinks [rationality and irrationality] can be distinguished outside
>of rhetoric".
briefly that claims about the rationality or otherwise of something are rhetorical claims. Chomsky is not involved in bridge building. he is involved in making claims about a particular practice and ideology in the US (IQ tests) based on making a distinction between what is the rational and irrational response to such tests and their results (the content) and distinguishing this from the very practice of the tests themselves (the science, the logic), as if the only pertinent (rational) question one could ask here was whether or not they follow certain procedures of research, the grammar of science if you will.
angela