> all of its arguments seem to implicitly target some sort of weird strawman version of Chomskian theories. Innateness of language is not a theory because it l

> all of its arguments seem to implicitly target some sort of weird strawman version of Chomskian theories. Innateness of language is not a theory because it lacks what is the hallmark of any scientific theory: the ability to produce falsifiable predictions. People argue against ridiculous straw-men because there is nothing better that we could test. Chomsky proposed innateness to challenge the behaviourists who simply assumed that language is learned without even trying to proof it. Back in the day that was an honorable goal but half a century later we have to acknowledge that Chomsky and his followers have failed to offer something better, they just replaced one unfounded belief by another.