"Debunking" itself is kind of silly - the idea that you'd just want to terminate any line of inquiry past some point where the inquirer was "incorrect," according to whatever subjective conditions of "incorrectness" that you're working with, and refuse to acknowledge any statements made past that point. There are spaces where an argument could be made that it's necessary - mathematics, for example - but philosophy? Anyways, I do sympathize with criticisms of GA's lack of respectable epistemic rigor, but the types of institutional structures necessary for such rigor can't be built overnight. There's like, maybe 10 people doing work with Adam's originary grammar right now. That number should begin to change once courses and learning materials get finished and the necessary incentive structures set up for people to learn and do research.
"Debunking" itself is kind of silly - the idea that you'd just want to terminate any line of inquiry past some point where the inquirer was "incorrect," according to whatever subjective conditions of "incorrectness" that you're working with, and refuse to acknowledge any statements made past that point. There are spaces where an argument could be made that it's necessary - mathematics, for example - but philosophy? Anyways, I do sympathize with criticisms of GA's lack of respectable epistemic rigor, but the types of institutional structures necessary for such rigor can't be built overnight. There's like, maybe 10 people doing work with Adam's originary grammar right now. That number should begin to change once courses and learning materials get finished and the necessary incentive structures set up for people to learn and do research.