Re: Morimarusa

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- On Sat, 1/16/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > As I have tried to get across to you on several occasions I never
> > try to prove a hypothesis, since there's no way you can do that.
> > What I do is I propose theses and then try to disprove the other,
> > existing theses. This is a formal description of what people
> > actually do, they don't 'prove' things in one unitary process. To
> > lean back and demand 'proof' and then reject everything the
> > proponent comes up with the subjective reason that is hasn't
> > convinced me is of course a fool-proof method of stopping any new
> > theory. So, here's the deal: if in the future you try to bait me
> > with 'You haven't proved...' I won't respond. If you try 'This is
> > wrong because...' I will. Clear enough?
>
> ****GK: The problem with you ,Torsten, is thast you seem incapable
> of understanding that what you consider "disproof" is
> scientifically inadequate.

I haven't said anything of what I consider 'disproof', so I wonder what that's supposed to mean.

> The standard view, which apparently dissatisfies you, is that there
> is no evidence of any significant Sarmatian influx into the area of
> the Przeworsk culture. You have been unable to point to anything
> except "inhumations", and that per se, is not a defining Sarmatian
> trait.

1) the suddenly appearing upper layer in Przeworsk is characterized by inhumation and expensive Roman grave goods.

2) the graves of the Golden Cemetery are characterized by inhumation and expensive Roman grave goods.

Nothing characteristically 'Sarmatian' about either.

> But your subjective desire to disprove the obvious is not backed up
> by any objective evidence, and this is a simple fact.

I am not trying to disprove anything here, I am proposing a scenario. As usual all this scientific method talk is too complicated for you.

> I think that in the absence of anything further, your decision to
> keep quiet is not a bad one.*****

Huh? When did I decide that?

> > Where your source states that there might be something to look at
> > you advance unfounded conclusions.
>
> What you state my source states is what I've stated all the time.
> The thing I propose is something that should be looked at.
>
> ****GK: Do let us know if your "looking" produces anything more
> satisfactory than a vague longing for unavailable evidence.*****

Hot air as usual.



Torsten