Labeling (ii) as a fact was a bit of joke, but not overtly marked, which may lead to misunderstanding, so you are correct.
My gripe is not against Chomsky, the person, but against Chomsky-ism (although he does have a very aggressive, know-it-all tone when discussing many subjects, that I find at odds with scientific humility). This is common: A pioneer comes up with a new way of thinking, then it is accepted as dogma by the community. Although one may think otherwise, this is also very common in science. Scientific revolutions usually don't happen with paradigm shifts but through the demise of old age of the new theory's opponents.
What's shocking is that a field like linguistics, which some may argue is more scientifically rigorous than its sister humanities disciplines, operated on what, to me, are speculative assumptions for close to 40 years.
My gripe is not against Chomsky, the person, but against Chomsky-ism (although he does have a very aggressive, know-it-all tone when discussing many subjects, that I find at odds with scientific humility). This is common: A pioneer comes up with a new way of thinking, then it is accepted as dogma by the community. Although one may think otherwise, this is also very common in science. Scientific revolutions usually don't happen with paradigm shifts but through the demise of old age of the new theory's opponents.
What's shocking is that a field like linguistics, which some may argue is more scientifically rigorous than its sister humanities disciplines, operated on what, to me, are speculative assumptions for close to 40 years.