Agreed. The author’s comparison between C.’s politics and linguistic scholarship, meant to show a “common root” in totalitarian thinking, is dubious, to say the least. For one, there are many examples of political cranks/imposters with perfect scientific credentials.
For another, axiomatic thinking is common in math, logic, metaphysics–all operating sometimes under postulates that are assumed to need no evidence–perfect fodder for criticism/fallsifiability, all of which have gone on for millenia.
I gather the author knows the following axioms:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Obviously, there’s a huge difference between logical/scientific axioms and religious/philosophical ones. Yet a criticism of C.’s axiomatic thinking in linguistics doesn’t get us anywhere. You have to start with Plato and Cratylos.
