For contributions to the field please refer to his journal publications. A partial list is given in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard...
The problem is that it's not Dawkins' or Chomsky's academic articles that have showed up on HN, it's the other stuff.
Ever heard of a "meme"?
Dawkins has contributed plenty to his field, and he writes very accessible books.
That essay by him obviously doesn't criticize the entire field. He's just telling his readers to put up some nonsense filters before they start reading padded fluff.
In writing his book, Dawkins ignored the last 2000+ years of scholarship on the nature of ideas, and influenced a tiny group of academics who are completely isolated from any other form of philosophy.
The Journal of Memetics (which was the only one of its kind) ceased publishing in 2005.
It was a throw-away comparison, not the point of the book. But, the term "meme" is a good meme, and it caught on.
I don't think anyone here would take Ray Kurzweil's books seriously, but quite a few people would upvote an article by Dawkins or Chomsky, whose books have contributed to their respective fields in the same way that Kurzweil has to ours -- which is to say, not at all.
P.S. The last time someone submitted an article about the Sokal affair, I posted a short comment about the importance of postmodernism here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=564856