Disclaimer: I think the most correct criticism of Chomsky was by Everett, and the following shitshow that ensued is _really_ a shame for linguistics in the Angl

Disclaimer: I think the most correct criticism of Chomsky was by Everett, and the following shitshow that ensued is _really_ a shame for linguistics in the Anglo world [0] (Chomsky wasn't the instigator, but his silence doesn't paint him in a great light). Some of the other criticisms are also valid, but often too ideologically tainted or too incorrect to be worth your time (or anyone's time tbh). I think you have to start with his criticism of Skinner (papers that criticize other papers are often the best and the most informative ones) and his theory of UG, then Everett's claim and Chomsky's rebuttal (sightly weak, but interesting to understand his views on UG). I know UG has been rebuilt (basically his theory was falsifiable, was falsified on the field, then UG people worked on another similar theory that corrected some mistakes), but it was post 2011 and i stopped followed humanities around that time, and never got back into linguistics, so you might want to read about that. [0] Something similar happened in France with Furet, and the fact that Furet's school of thought still somewhat exist and the debate lasted decades on polite terms without ad hominem is a compliment to historian's values and practice. Saying "critical thinking" and running away from correct criticism is shameful.