"...So Chomsky is not qualified to speak on anything outside of linguistics or else we run into the logical fallacy of
We shall run into our nemesis Mr. Fallacy quite a few times reading Chomsky's "Case against..." which is somewhat disturbing. If Chomsky is willing to commit such crimes here, what then is he willing to commit elsewhere?
So Chomsky's arguments are widely cited as compelling "because" he is an MIT professor of linguistics, but this is clearly a fallacy of an appeal to authority since that gives him the ability to credibly speak to issues of language and linguistics, but not much else.
Then we are simply left with his opinions as uneducated and compelling based on their own merits or lack thereof. I think they are quite uncompelling and a stroll down the lane might find you agreeing.
Chomsky uses this reference to British racism and imperialism and the demise of "racist anthropology" to smear Skinner with the tainted brush of racism, not once but twice, although Skinner has - to my knowledge - never been accused of racism directly or indirectly by anyone else. Chomsky alone seems to have the keen insight to smell the whiff of racism in theories he doesn't like. In this sense he demonstrates what I call "psychic powers". Chomsky does this repeatedly throughout this essay. He sees futures that others cannot see. He sees meaning that others cannot see. He sees intent and motivation that others do not see, and he can discern real from false whether others have come to the opposite conclusion. Truly, Mr. Chomsky is akin to the Oracle at Delphi or some comic book super hero..." - Read Full Article Here
The "appeal to authority" argument against Chomsky is definitely legit.