Obviously, feedback is part of learning language. B. F. Skinner argued that it was the whole explanation, as you're claiming. That was the idea Chomsky challenged.
You're not addressing the crucial point. The suprise isn't that people can invent new sentences. It's how well they can tell if other speakers will regard those sentences as valid English (or valid Ebonics). People can evaluate sentences, and forms of sentences, that have never been spoken. They could not have learned that by feedback, and linguists stuggle to state the precise rules by which they do it.
Why not? I'm not saying that grammar doesn't exist, I'm asking why it needs to be innate?
The existence of grammar rules is what allows us to determine if a sentence is grammatically correct. These rules could be learned through experience. Why do they need to be innate?
I believe you don't understand Chomsky's argument. I'm not a die hard behaviourist I just know the behaviourist position well enough to know that your particular formulation of the "language is special" theory is easily refuted.
You're not addressing the crucial point. The suprise isn't that people can invent new sentences. It's how well they can tell if other speakers will regard those sentences as valid English (or valid Ebonics). People can evaluate sentences, and forms of sentences, that have never been spoken. They could not have learned that by feedback, and linguists stuggle to state the precise rules by which they do it.