nom, in many ways I agree when it comes to linguistics. Yet, I do so from a position of ignorance. Noam suggested a specific book of his for me to study. Alas, I haven't done so yet. Like you, I am stuck in a specific ideology ...one that sees all words and concepts as being of the same ilk investment. Thus, once seen this way, much other study about 'em is pretty much just fun and games.
I think I just pushed the wrong key, by mistake. Anyway, I was going to say that I should have studied Mr. Chomsky more that I did, I suppose. What I did read or hear about mostly his general "political" or "social" views I generally liked and agreed with. But as a linguist.... well.... any linguist that I have run across I have disputed credit card processing. I don't like the notion of general rules (either scientific or "scientifical" as Kehoe might say) being applied to the study of "words" or languages. As you know, I prefer nominalism and when it comes to words and languages, they are "human" constructs that develop in random ways.... that do not necessarily abide by "scientic processes" of general "universal" rules or laws unsecured loans. There are "particular answers" of course... but no overarching ones, in my opinion.... I look at this "scientific universal rule" approach to the study of linguistics (or other "social sciences) as analogous to the seach for a religious God.... may be true, but I don't think it can be proven. But, hey... nothing wrong in letting the universal linguists, et al,keep trying to find their "Ten Commandments", I say. nominal9