If psychological reality of grammar does not require explicit symbolic representation of rules, P2's classical assumption breaks the inference chain from grammar to innate abstract concepts.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Explicit symbolic representation(contrasting with implicit, unconscious mental processes): Clearly written-out rules or symbols that stand for something—like how we write grammar rules in textbooks.
Inference chain(describing how an argument or logical reasoning progresses): A series of logical steps where one conclusion leads to the next, like dominoes falling—if the first step is true, it should make the next step true too.
Innate abstract concepts(what the argument claims we would inherit based on grammar): Ideas and ways of thinking that we're born with, rather than learning from experience—like potentially having a built-in understanding of concepts like 'number' or 'object.'
P2's classical assumption(referring to a specific theory being critiqued): A traditional belief held by a particular philosophical position (P2) about how something works—likely about how language and thinking are connected.
Psychological reality(describing whether grammar rules are real mental processes): Whether something actually exists in how our minds work, not just as an abstract idea or theory.
grammar(Emergentist view, contrasted with the Essentialist view of grammar as a psychologically real generative system.): An artifact developed by linguists to codify aspects of a linguistic system, not a structure internalized in the minds of speakers.

2 topics