IMHO the heroic phrasing around Chomsky *is* slanted and dated.  At this time Skinner and Chomsky can probably be seen as equally historical and incomplete (as with Freud, Rogers and most other 'past their prime' approaches.  At this point all I did is remove the grossly inaccurate statement that behaviorists considering subjective states "illusory" rather than unscientific (I say this as a radical behaviorist specialising in suffering states).  It is worth keeping in mind that the behaviorist 'hegemony' is over but behaviorism is not.  I am used to texts treating behaviorist dominance quite correctly as historical but the approach remains a entirely legitimate one within a pluralistic science of psychology