Both Chomsky and Kay are systems thinkers and scientists. Systems are incredibly difficult to discuss, model, etc. with the precision of say quantum mechanics or relativity or any other physical theory.
Many systems thinkers and indeed even entire fields are often rejected, dismissed, or insulted by those used to the precision of say physics. Examples of such fields are biology, sociology, psychology, etc., i.e., as you move up the systems ladder. Fields like physics are easy because they readily allow assumptions to greatly simplify and test theories. We are simply in the infancy of understanding complex systems and being able to discuss and describe systems, so people can often be revolted by the apparent, but not actual, looseness of arguments and theories when it comes to systems. This is not a fault in the persons who study systems. It is not a fault at all. It is simply the facts of nature in that we are just beginning to be able to tackle these subjects.
For Chomsky, I don't think I've ever witnessed someone speak who exudes more intellectual power than him. He seems to possess a near photographic memory, recalling specific phrases from some newspaper or journal article from decades ago. He seems to be quite honest about his own work and addressing things with humility.
> For Chomsky, I don't think I've ever witnessed someone speak who exudes more intellectual power than him.
Begs the question of whether he actually has that intellectual power, or you have only got this impression thanks to his successful bloviation.
> He seems to possess a near photographic memory, recalling specific phrases from some newspaper or journal article from decades ago.
Nope. Or, if he has, he uses it very selectively. Read some of the counters to his political writings, and you'll get lots of examples of him twisting the words of his opponents, and conveniently forgetting his own earlier ones.
> He seems to be quite honest about his own work and addressing things with humility.
No. Given his intellectual dishonesty in his political writings, I see no reason to trust his character elsewhere either.
Many systems thinkers and indeed even entire fields are often rejected, dismissed, or insulted by those used to the precision of say physics. Examples of such fields are biology, sociology, psychology, etc., i.e., as you move up the systems ladder. Fields like physics are easy because they readily allow assumptions to greatly simplify and test theories. We are simply in the infancy of understanding complex systems and being able to discuss and describe systems, so people can often be revolted by the apparent, but not actual, looseness of arguments and theories when it comes to systems. This is not a fault in the persons who study systems. It is not a fault at all. It is simply the facts of nature in that we are just beginning to be able to tackle these subjects.
For Chomsky, I don't think I've ever witnessed someone speak who exudes more intellectual power than him. He seems to possess a near photographic memory, recalling specific phrases from some newspaper or journal article from decades ago. He seems to be quite honest about his own work and addressing things with humility.