well, see, that's why i wrote, "I know that there's no imperative for a man in his field to understand...."
There's none. He's being asked to speak to a topic he has no training in and, when I read him, _I_ see little evidence that he has a facility with the arguments in the field. He presents them as his opinion in an interview space and provides no reasons. However, he does present them as if his opinion isn't arguable. That's just the way it is. This is in contrast to the way he handles other issues, carefully providing loads of evidence.
So, to my mind, when he opines on topics outside his ken, then his assertions are worth exactly what I paid for them.
but what I'm curious about is this. you just insisted that _I_ have an obligation to demonstrate to your satisfaction that I understand Chomsky's position. If you hold me to that standard, then why object to my disappointment that Chomsky doesn't do likewise and demonstrate in the limited time and space he has (no diff. than the limited time and space on an email list) that he has more than a superficial understanding of the philosophy of science and what his critics have to say?
this objection he has, for instance, that social theories aren't testable is far too simplistic. does he understand what statistical theory is all about in the social sciences? When I get time, I'll be happy to scan Hempel's chapter showing how statistical theory is the social science's answer to testability and the demand for prediction. It's not the definitive answer to the debate--no one has a definitive answer. However, it's far more sophisticated stuff than "there's no such thing in the social sciences".
Maybe he addresses it--and that's great. But these comments here indicate a dismissiveness that I find, uhm, revealing.
kelley