From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 23:36:33 MDT
On 10 Sep 2002 at 23:02, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> [rhinoceros -1]
>
> From MIT Tech Talk Wednesday April 15, 1992 page 3
>
> Chomsky is Citation Champ
>
> Many are the authors who may wonder is anyone is paying attention to
> what they write. Professor Noam Chomsky, MIT's preeminent linguistics
> authority, doesn't have that problem. Recent research on citations in
> three different citation indices show that Professor Chomsky is one of
> the most cited individuals in works published in the past 20 years.
>
> In fact, his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index
> between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that
> period and the eight most cited source overall -- just behind famed
> psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel.
>
> Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten
> cited sources during the period were:
>
> 1. Marx
> 2. Lenin
> 3. Shakespeare
> 4. Aristotle
> 5. The Bible
> 6. Plato
> 7. Freud
> 8. Chomsky
> 9. Hegel
> 10. Cicero.
>
> But that isn't all. From 1972 to 1992, Professor Chomsky was cited
> 7,449 times in the Social Science Citation Index -- likely the
> greatest number of times for a living person there as well, although
> the research into those numbers isn't complete. In addition, from
> 1974 to 1992 he was cited 1,619 times in the Science Citation Index.
>
> "What it means is that he is very widely read across disciplines and
> that his work is used by researchers across disciplines," said Theresa
> A. Tobin, the Humanities Librarian who checked the numbers. "In
> fact," she added, "it seems that you can't write a paper without
> citing Noam Chomsky."
>
>
>
> [Joe Dees 1]
> 1) Ad Populam is a 2500-year-old Greek logical fallacy, so his
> plethora of citations contribute not one whit to his credibility on
> this issue.
>
> 2) Many of his citations have to do with both his more legitimate
> (although hotly disputed and currently out of favor) academic work and
> his other anti-american prounciamentoes.
>
> 3) It would be interesting to analyze his post-9/11 citations to
> discover what percentage of them were disparaging or refutational; my
> guess is that the percentage would be high.
>
>
>
> [rhinoceros 2]
> Of course, the number of citations does not prove someone right. This
> becomes obvious by taking a look at the other names mentioned. It just
> proves that what Chomsky had to say was considered very important for
> Arts and Humanities papers accross disciplines.
>
> Quote:
> "What it means is that he is very widely read across disciplines and
> that his work is used by researchers across disciplines," said Theresa
> A. Tobin, the Humanities Librarian who checked the numbers. "In
> fact," she added, "it seems that you can't write a paper without
> citing Noam Chomsky."
>
And more than not, lately, in counterpoint. He has really shit in his
white hat on this one (a US Navy term meaning a stain that cannot be
cleaned), and as a result, his star is progressively fading among the
real (as opposed to the trendy wannabe) cognoscentious inteligentsia.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26486>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:56 MDT