All of which are entirely accurate claims, not "slander".
> ... The review is:
>
>"...ungenerous to a fault; condescending, unforgiving, obtuse, and
>ill-humored... The review's one kind word is in a footnote. It is almost
>impossible to reply... without at the same time sounding either defensive
>and apologetic, or as truculent as the reviewer. I have hesitated until now
>because I am an editor for the Series in which _Verbal Behavior_ was
>publshed. Caveat lector." MacCorquondale, JEAB Jan.'70
Yes, and this is from an acolyte of Skinner, not surprising.
>Chomsky's basic argument runs something like: if behaviorism is true then it
>is possible to control people. We ought not to be controlled (since it is in
>our nature to be free), therefore behaviorism is false.
Hardly. Since you can't be bothered to quote the content of his argument accurately, I'll assume you haven't bothered to read it. It's amazing that you, virtually alone among the thousands of highly educated people who have read the review, have pierced Chomsky's analysis and demonstrated it's utter vacuity, whereas the rest of the world felt it to be completely on-target and delivered a deserved blow against a behaviorist interpretations of language.
>Chomsky's deep respect for, and appreciation of, science can be seen in this
>quote from _Noam Chomsky, A Life of Dissent_ by Robert F. Barsky:
>
>Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a
>lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because
>that's where the light is. It has no other choice.
>- - Noam Chomsky, letter to the author, 14 June 1993
To imply that this represents disrespect for science is a joke.
Bill