what's some academic literature that's as engaging and require as little background as this?
Reminder that Chomsky constantly attacks other thinkers for not being scientific enough despite his most famous theory never ever being discovered or any evidence of it being found
Well a trivial example you'll find just about everywhere in the acquisition literature is the ability of children to interpret long-range wh-dependencies without evidence that these structures are possible in their language. There's also the fact that any speech error a child makes that isn't a processing error is explainable by means of incremental adjustments of a universal weighed constrain ranking. One example of this the felicity of certain scope violations in non-English languages that are found in the early speech of English speaking children
>Results gained from painstaking empirical study over the course of decades and published in peer reviewed journals not evidence
I don't think you know anything about linguistics. I think you hate Chomsky for independent reasons. I think you once overheard someone shit talk UG and decided to add this belief to your Chomsky hate because that would be the easy, most satisfying thing to do.
Its evidence that the idea has merit which is completely different from evidence that actually proves or even removes reasonable doubt. People also thought weed killed brain cells for years because of research which gave that idea merit
My original comment was that there's abundant evidence for UG, I never said it was 'proven'. If 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' is your criteria for science, then I suppose you don't get out of the math department much.