If it is then I wouldn't necessarily call it a rebuttal because Norvig broadly agrees with Chomsky on the points under discussion. And that is that statistical models are not useful scientific theories about language in themselves. Where they disagree is what consequences to draw from it: Chomsky discards studying language by statistical means altogether, but Norvig offers a more nuanced position: he argues that there might still be a merit in statistical approaches to language, but not as a result so much in itself but rather as a valid tool that can ultimately help derive a deeper understanding.

I think this is a valuable distinction. Unfortunately, though, it is one that the research landscape seems to have somehow forgotten about over the last decade or so.

More tangibly speaking using an example, while the capabilities of a language model like GPT-3 are amazing, Norvig's point is that science should not just stop there - it should ask the question "what does GPT-3 teach us about human language?"

>Chomsky discards studying language by statistical means altogether

Chomsky nowhere does this. That is at best a straw man constructed by Norvig of Chomsky's position. If you just look at the transcript of the Chomksy interview in the Norvig piece, you can see Chomsky describing a case where statistical analysis is useful.