[tied] Re: Grimm's Law is about to expire (Collinge 1985, p. 267, T

> > But on what would you base that estimate of
> > probability? Gut feeling?
>
> ****GK: Hardly. On a combination of factors:
> historical, archaeological, linguistic, religious,
> cultural, and anything else which may count as
> evidence. One examines the lot as carefully as one
> can and then one estimates what is more or less likely
> (sometimes as in OIT vs. AIT considerably so.
> 1,000,000 to one is poetic license (:=))*****

I had a hunch.

> > In Popper's version, a theory should be falsifiable,
> > and the
> > falsifiabler it is, the better. I prefer that
> > criterion.
>
> ****GK: I have no objection to this. Particularly
> since it very elegantly jettisons Popper's own views
> on Plato ,Hegel, and Marx.****
>
> It is the job
> > of an opponent, not of the proponent to kill a
> > theory. And as a long
> > as a theory hasn't been killed, it's alive.
>
> ****GK: As long as you want to use such analogies
> ("dead/alive") I would suggest a variant. Before a
> theory can be "killed" it must at least be "alive".
> Right? And alive scientifically, not just verbally.
> Much as I might deplore this there is no scientific
> proof for the existence of God. Yet God is alive and
> hugely meaningful to countless people. But we are in a
> different zone here. I think that OIT is in such a
> non-scientific zone of its own.

Do you have a reference where I can read about this zone
theory? I recall from 'Superman' that there was a zone to
which (scientific?) criminals were banned. Is this what
you have in mind?

> It is certainly
> "alive", but not scientifically alive. AIT is not
> established beyond all doubt.

As I think Popper pointed out, you can't establish anything
beyond all doubt. You seem to pop outside of his theory
all the time.

> But is has a tremendous
> amount of scientific data in its favour. And the
> doubts do not result, scientifically, in an argument
> in favour of OIT.

I don't recall anyone having proposed that. Please stay
clear of the windmills.

> Flogging dead horses is not scientific argumentation.

How does one clinically establish the death of a horse,
to stay in your simile?

> One has to have something more positive to even begin a scientific
> conversation.

That's not Popper either.

> Mere "propositions" won't cut it. As in the case of
> the "eastern origins" of Germanic (:=))), still alive
> in your head, as your obiter dicta frequently
> indicate, but scientifically quite dead...*****

I'm sorry to hear that, dr. Knysh. Donc Dieu existe?


Torsten