Those who argue that Chomsky singularly "pioneered" or "revolutionized" the study of formal language should thoroughly read the book "Linguistics and the Formal Sciences" by Marcus Tomalin. It is a great historical account of the development of this particular strain of formal linguistic study. Knowing more about the intellectual environment and his predecessors and contemporaries helps to erode the mythology of Chomsky as the sole revolutionary catalyst in the development of formal language theory. In fact the major principles of his classic theory of syntax can be thought of as fairly incremental developments from previous work. Many of the specific claims he is well known for had been made by others before.
As for his contributions to cognitive science, I think one side of the field simply feels that he is clinging to some outmoded notions of what Bayesian modeling can achieve in terms of explanatory power.
As a counterpoint, EVERYONE should read Andy Clark's beautifully written BBS paper "Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science."
As for his contributions to cognitive science, I think one side of the field simply feels that he is clinging to some outmoded notions of what Bayesian modeling can achieve in terms of explanatory power.
As a counterpoint, EVERYONE should read Andy Clark's beautifully written BBS paper "Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science."