This paper offers a refutation of Chomsky's Universal Grammar (UG) from a novel perspective. It comprises a central part, clarifications and comparisons. The central part starts with an examination of Chomsky's research method and then argues that the method is seriously flawed and that it cannot lead to the discovery of any innate universals of language. In the clarifications part, a number of questions that could be raised concerning the central part of the refutation are presented and answered. The answers to these questions help to make clearer why UG is deeply problematic, and thus consolidate the central part of the refutation. The comparisons part discusses some representative critiques of UG by other scholars, shows their inadequacies, and thus further highlights the value of the present critique.