The problem is the amount, it's the fact that it's wide-spread (i.e. horizontal) but when you examine deeply any one piece you find it to be quite weak, i.e. shallow.
It's a similar technique used by conspiracy theorists and Creationists.
It's a similar technique used by conspiracy theorists and Creationists.
The author justifies this by saying no reader can reasonably be expected to be "familiar with" the references Chomsky uses. So what? The references are all there and available for the reader to look up. Once looked up, the reader is familiar with it. No problem. Incredibly weak argument and one that can only be accepted if we accept lazy reading as a given.
That's low hanging fruit then, go for it. After all proving Chomsky decisively wrong on a large number of things is something a lot of people would like to be able to do, by reading you I get the impression that this is easy. After all criticizing Yehudi Menuhin does not even require one to be able to play the violin.