Reply #30: Sure thing..

[Phx_Dem]

http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/rea44.htm

I have concluded that, in large part, Chomsky's work is not comprised of scientific theories.
http://diary.carolyn.org/abstract.html

Jerrold Katz, Scott Soames, Michael Devitt, and Kim Sterelny have presented a number of arguments, all intended to show that the Chomskian subfield hypothesis is incorrect—there is a significant distinction between the disciplines of linguistics and psychology
http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/grad_conference/mcdonald.html