Rejecting Aristotle is always a sign of a break with scientific orthodoxy.
The past month has been bad for orthodox linguists.
First came the Surprise Meeting at the Summit which showed that instead of searching for new empirical data or even new theoretical arguments (metaphysics), orthodox linguistics has turned to politics to patrol its turf.
Next came two consecutive posts (here and here) on a paper reporting a review of empirical studies that indicates brain circuitry divides language into a basic syntax that deals with the concrete world that one can point to, and an extended syntax that allows for things that cannot be pointed at. This data contradicts the orthodox expectation that a special mutation divided syntax circuitry along the lines of syntax with and without recursion. Instead circuits divide along a pointable/unpointable line.
Finally, I posted two consecutive discussions (here and here) about a paper by Maggie Tallerman stressing the importance of external processes over internal ones, and denying the orthodox position that concepts and words have the same properties.
Still, the orthodox bastion arose from inquiries by hundreds of devoted scholars and a couple of oddities are not going to knock it over. I do think, however, an inspection of the building is warranted. How is it holding up?