Disclaimer: The following quotations are highly biased with respect to their amusement value. The webmistress of this site does not consider herself to be in possession of sufficient knowledge to ascertain that the quotations below do not in fact reflect the actual nature of the phenomena they discuss.
Your theory predicts the opposite of the observed
effect
p. 333: "We
are left with some unclarity about the proper idealization of the
data with extraneous factors removed."
Your theory predicts the wrong order of elements
p. 368: "The
best answer would be that the order is really (205a) throughout
the <...> computation. <...> We thus take the
output to be really (205a), irrespective of what is observed at
the PF output"
Your theory has troubles addressing certain
operations
p. 325:
"the core computational properties we have considered differ
markedly in character from many other operations of the language
faculty, and it may be a mistake to try to integrate them within
the same framework of principles."
Your theory wants to be unambiguous, but you're not
sure
p. 252: "Chains
are unambiguously determined in this way. \ It may, however,
be correct to allow a certain ambiguity."
Your theory and your data have little in common:
p. 7: "This
version of IC is reasonable: let us adopt it -- noting, however,
that it is by no means easy to satisfy and is often violated in
practice, even when adopted as a general principle."
You want your theory to conform to some principle, but
then it doesn't account for the data:
p. 10:
"The thesis conforms to SMT, but faces serious empirical
challenge."