Re: [tied] About methodology...

> Glen: However, these quantum-linguistic analogies may only go so >far.
>You assert that greater and greater accuracy are possible up to a >_certain
>limit_. Please prove that statement or gracefully withdraw >the ad hominem.
>
>What's ad hominem in my posting? "Parva"?

Actually, no. I was refering to your assertion that there is an actual limit
to CompLx accuracy, which amounts to nothing more than a completely
unprovable and emotional opinion, NOT fact. This is something that you
aren't admitting to the rest of the list members.

>I meant both of us and the informal level of our discussion as >compared to
>the really deep debates between Bohr and Einstein. No >problem, I withdraw
>"parvus" if you prefer to be "magnus".

Dear, Piotr. It's not the size that matters ;) It'll be our little secret
then...

>The limit probably varies depending on the local ethnolinguistic and
> >cultural configuration. Without scholastic sophistry it's enough to >look
>at the quality of concrete reconstructions at various time depths >to
>support this viewpoint empirically.

Empirically?? This clinches the point that the statements that you cloak as
100% fact are merely your stubborn opinions. Hardly scientific reasoning.
Quit the bs. There is no, and never was any, clear "limit" to compLx
accuracy. In order to assert this, one needs to first be aware of the entire
infinite evolution of complx from the beginning of time to the end. Are you
God? Say it over and over to yourself until you understand it - there IS no
limit.

>What about Nostratic? And please don't tell me stories about the >teething
>troubles of Nostratic linguistics. Illich-Svitych died in >1966.
>Dolgopolsky has been an active scholar for some 40 years now, >Bomhard
>published "Toward Proto-Nostratic" in 1984. Where's the >progress? Where's
>the "greater and greater accuracy"? Where are the >long-promised
>etymological dictionaries of Nostratic?

Again, like I was saying earlier, politics plays a definite role in
comparative linguistics as with any other science. A good example of
politics rearing its ugly head in genetics is the fear and outrage expressed
against human cloning (or for that matter, in a larger context, against
anything that could irrevocably alter our trite definition of "human"). The
fear, of course, is based largely on misunderstanding as always. Due to
this, human cloning of any kind is now considered taboo, immoral and
therefore illegal. Progress in this avenue, therefore, has been halted
directly through politics of the absurd.

A similar situation is true for Nostratic where the progress is slow partly
because of methodological mix-ups by modern day linguists in AND out of the
Nostratic circle. Like you, they don't make a clearcut distinction between
probability and proof, logical reasoning and wild opinion and end up
hopelessly confused.

>Wow, that's nearly twenty times the number of reliable root equations
> >supporting Uralic! Why doesn't everyone join the club at once? You >seem
>to believe that the sociology of science provides an answer. You >may be
>partly right, but the other reason is, quite simply, that the >vast
>majority of those reconstructions involve poorly substantiated >sound
>correspondences, arbitrary variation and loose semantics.

I have to agree that this is partly the reason. However, because of the
shotty work of those in the past, people who haven't jumped on the Nostratic
cruise ship yet are now even more skeptical than ever. Now, this skepticism
can be healthy as long as it doesn't go too far treading into the region of
bias. However, humans being humans, the likelihood for bias against the
Nostratic theory mounts every decade, even if valid evidence is put forth.

This skepticism turned bias is exactly what you're expressing now, Piotr,
and shows that you are greatly affected by politics :P A healthy skeptic
would simply concern himself with the here-and-now, not what was done in the
past. Oh well, no one's perfect.

>My favourite quotes are from Vitaly Shevoroshkin (University of MI, >Ann
>Arbor):

I see nothing wrong with his quote.

>As a matter of fact, Illich-Svitych reconstructed about 750 roots and
> >Dolgopolsky's still unpublished long list is said to contain more than
> >2300 cognate sets (not to mention grammatical paradigms, pronoun >systems
>etc.).

Illych-Svitych meant well and didn't do to bad (as opposed to say...
Starostin...) but his phonology for one, concerning ejectives especially, is
wrong. Bomhard has corrected this aspect of it brillantly via modern
typology. I doubt that IS's grammatical work could be very relevant anymore
though... if it exists. <:S

>I agree. Splits do take place and may become permanent divisions --
> >though, mind you, not so unbridgeable as the gaps between distantly
> >related eukaryotic species in biology. I'm suspicious of >dogmatic
>"arborealism" as a methodological principle, but accept the >practical
>usefulness of "family trees" as such.

Hooray, we're in complete agreement on this point! Break out the champagne,
mes amis!

- gLeN


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com