Re: Vandals

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> > --- On Fri, 8/29/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@... s.com, "indravayu" <sonno3@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, because, Chris' attempts notwithstanding, their names are
> > > not Germanic.
> > >
> > > I will give Torsten this - he has the amazing ability to
> > > compose fact-free responses while simultaneously having his
> > > head buried in the sand - no small feat, I assure you!
> >
> > And the facts in this posting are? Or have you found a sandworm?
> >
>
> ****GK: Torsten's response reminds me of a famous scene in "The
> Maltese Falcon", where Joel Cairo (played by Peter Lorre) answers
> the Lieutenant's request to "just give us the facts" with a
> "duuh... facts? What facts?" and then quickly opts for the story
> invented by Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart)as a convenient slip-out, in
> line with his current situation. Torsten is not a man of science
> but an ideologist,

Not really. I stick to Popper's model.

> who will not accept any facts as facts which do not support his
> ideological prejudices,

When did that happen? Those proposals Chris made for a Germanic
derivation of those four names 'quidam' "certain people" consider
genuine and ancient are not facts, they are proposals, and not perfect
ones at that.

> arrived at and sustained in complete independence of accepted
> scientific practice. He is, for instance, totally convinced that
> Snorri Sturluson has the "truth" with respect to the prehistory of
> the Germanic lands,

No, I am proposing a model in which Snorri Sturluson spoke of things
which actually happened to the best of his and his sources' ability.

> and is only interested in finding evidence in science which
> supports this prejudice.

Of course. And it's 'theory'.

> Where this evidence, as is usually the case, does not support
> Snorri,

Like the whole Ariovistus' story?

> our Torsten either rejects it or ignores it,

And he gives you reasons why.

> or is prepared to embark on endless twistarounds with red
> herrings galore.

That's what it looks like to the guy with the losing theory.

> Four of his favourite techniques are :
> (1) the reversal of responsibility: i.e. he makes an unproved
> assertion and then expects you to disprove it;

Popper.

> (2) the need for "perfect evidence" to dislodge his ideological
> committments (BTW there is never that in human affairs);

The need for an argument which disproves my theory; Popper too.

> (3) the side issue escape hatch;

If you think I am leaving an issue prematurely, please say so.

> (4) the "what hat?" approach in debates. [Story: one man accused
> another of taking his hat. The other denied it. The first man asks:
> "did we not travel together?" Answer: "yes we did". Question: "did
> I not have a hat on?" Answer: "yes you did" Question: "did you not
> ask me to let you wear it?" answer: "yes I did." Question: "did I
> not pass the hat over to you?" Answer: "what hat?" Question: "did
> we not travel together?" etc...]

If you think I'm doing that, please say so when you think it happens.

> Anybody who becomes involved in discussions with him should be
> aware of these limitations. Otherwise he is a nice enough fellow,
> with occasional worthwhile contributions.But I think I'm done with
> him.****

That's too bad. I never got around to asking you what happened east of
the Germanic lands in the first century BCE.

Come to think of it the above was a pretty accurate description of a
guy who tries to save a theory which needs Latin 'quidam' to mean
"all" instead of "some". I'm willing to pretend I didn't read it ;-)


Torsten