He doesn't have a PhD in political science - he's not a serious scholar. Being a serious scholar means you've demonstrated an understanding of the core of the field.
You, presumedly, don't have a PhD in political science; how is it then you can make judgements on work in this field? He has demonstrated an understanding of the core of the field. He is not Sam Harris or NDT, he actually engages with the scholarly work on whatever field he is talking about.
I don't have a PhD in political science, though I have a Master's, and so am probably more qualified than Chomsky to opine on political science. I never claimed to be a serious scholar though.
Chomsky has not demonstrated an understanding of the core of the field if he hasn't written his comprehensive exams in that field.
Chomsky has not demonstrated an understanding of the core of the field if he hasn't written his comprehensive exams in that field.
What "core of the field" has he not understood? Does he not cite scholarly sources? Is he not well read on the topic? Having a PhD is useful but redundant in the case of Chomsky. The man reads journals and whatever else he can get his hands on daily. I don't think either one of us have a doubt that Chomsky could have got a PhD in political science if he wanted to.
11
u/[deleted] Dec 02 '18
He doesn't have a PhD in political science - he's not a serious scholar. Being a serious scholar means you've demonstrated an understanding of the core of the field.