This article provides a refutation of Chomsky's Universal Grammar (UG) from a new viewpoint. It covers a central part, clarifications and comparisons. The central part begins with an exploration of Chomsky's research method and then asserts 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 regarding the central part of the refutation are proposed and replied. 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 debates some representative critiques of UG by other scholars, displays their inadequacies, and thus further points out the value of the present critique.