My Linguistics Is Pretty Theoretical.

There Is A Noticeable General Difference Between The Sciences And Mathematics On The One Hand, And The Humanities And Social Sciences On The Other. It's A First Approximation, But One That Is Real. In The Former, The Factors Of Integrity Tend To Dominate More Over The Factors Of Ideology. It's Not That Scientists Are More Honest People. It's Just That Nature Is A Harsh Taskmaster. You Can Lie Or Distort The Story Of The French Revolution As Long As You Like, And Nothing Will Happen. Propose A False Theory In Chemistry, And It'll Be Refuted Tomorrow.

But On The Other Hand, In Discussion And Debate Concerning Social Issues Or American Foreign Policy, Vietnam Or The Middle East, For Example, The Issue Is Constantly Raised, Often With Considerable Venom. I've Repeatedly Been Challenged On Grounds Of Credentials, Or Asked, What Special Training Do You Have That Entitles You To Speak Of These Matters. The Assumption Is That People Like Me, Who Are Outsiders From A Professional Viewpoint, Are Not Entitled To Speak On Such Things.

The Most Effective Way To Restrict Democracy Is To Transfer Decision-making From The Public Arena To Unaccountable Institutions: Kings And Princes, Priestly Castes, Military Juntas, Party Dictatorships, Or Modern Corporations.

If Voting Could Actually Change Anything, It Would Be Illegal.

I Know Of People Whose Actions And Words I Admire And Respect. Some Are Called "intellectuals," Some Are Not.