I certainly reject any other than a superficial comparison of animal communication systems with the human language. The fact that animals have a ‘signifying method’ is simply unrelated to the grammatical structure of human languages that enables symbolic and generative communication. [I maintain that animals are unable to develop symbolic signification and most certainly, don't have grammatical infrastructures].
I think, with reference to Peirce, that you mean ‘abduction’ not ‘adduction’. It’s not really the scientific method as we understand that method as based on observation and experiment. Abduction is the process of hypothesis generation, of coming up with a new theory…that can then be tested within the objective scientific method.
Your outline of Chomsky’s structural analysis of cognitive processes within lanuage describes its importance very well. And yes, this analysis was and remains, a productive and important contribution to cognition – but- as you point out, this does not justify or support any validity within Chomsky’s political and societal opinions.
