Re: Stacking up on standard works

At 6:07:18 AM on Thursday, March 29, 2012, Tavi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>>> 1) The root *wed- is only attested in zero-grade in
>>> Latin unda 'wave'. Also the proposed sound shift *dr- >
>>> tr- doesn't look as a "regular" one.

>>> 2) Words for 'glass' and 'woad' in other IE languages
>>> aren't derived from 'water'.

>>> When combined, (1) and (2) make De Vaan's etymology
>>> unfeasible.

>> No, they don't. They merely make it uncertain, something
>> that no one, I think, has disputed.

> Then it looks like De Vaan prefers a bad etymology to
> having none at all.

You really can't resist being insulting, can you? The
obvious inference is that de Vaan considers it an acceptable
etymology, not that he prefers a bad etymology to none.

[...]

>>> I'm affraid your last statement is grossly inaccurate.
>>> As I said several times, I belong to a minority group of
>>> researchers who think the traditional PIE model is
>>> inadequate and have proposed an alternative view.

>> Yes, I know: there is a small community of 'linguists',
>> some of whom even have relevant academic credentials, who
>> want to throw out most of what's been learned in the last
>> 100+ years.

> The worst thing which can happen to science is when it
> becomes *dogma*.

Ah, yes. While this is perfectly true, it's also the all
too familiar song of the crackpot.

> And I'm afraid "most of what's been learned in the last
> 100+ years" in IE studies has become that.

Obviously you have to believe that in order to justify
yourself. Obviously also you have no idea of the real state
of the field and how much active scholarly disagreement
there is even within its mainstream. And obviously you have
no idea how ridiculously arrogant your statement is. Anyone
with a functioning bullshit meter would be legitimately
skeptical of your qualifications on the basis of that
assertion alone.

>> In biology there are proponents of so-called intelligent
>> design with relevant academic credentials, too; that
>> doesn't mean that they aren't a fringe group that no one
>> takes seriously in scientific terms. You are also part of
>> a fringe group that hardly anyone takes seriously, and
>> for good reason, so you look very silly when you try to
>> impose your personal version of your little group's
>> terminology on a discussion outside that little group.

> I'm afraid truth can't be decided by a majority vote. This
> belongs to *politics*, not science.

Actually, it *does* belong to science, which in the end is
not about truth. Science is about constructing the best
explanations that we can of the world around us. Scientific
models are judged not on their truth, which by and large we
cannot determine, but by their explanatory and predictive
utility. And this is something that in the end is judged by
the scholarly community. Indeed, the whole point of
publication is to subject ideas to the test of opposing
views, and it's the scholars in the field who ultimately
render judgement. Such judgements are always subject to
change as new information and better ideas come along, of
course.

>>> I'd also recommend you moderate your tone ("fed up", "I
>>> don't give a damn", "damned"), as it doesn't really help
>>> to have a *scientific* discussion.

>> I don't expect to have one: you're not doing science.

> Neither are you. You stand on dogma.

Ah, yes. Anyone who strongly disagrees with you must be
blindly following dogma; he couldn't possibly find your
ideas intellectually unsatisfying and poorly supported.
This is another typical article of faith of the crackpot --
unsurprisingly, since it's so obviously comforting.

Brian