[tied] Re: "Odin of Asgard"

> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > But, apart from that, I wish you the best of luck
> > with proving your
> > theory.
> >
> > Torsten
>
> *****GK: Dear Thorsten, You don't seem to get it. My
> point is that given the kind of "proof" that you
> require to "disprove" your Odin fantasies I can
> successfully make any kind of ridiculous claim while
> contending that there is no "proof" against it. Were
> someone to claim that extra terrestrials intervened in
> the Mithridates matter, including at some juncture a
> total substitution of forged records to confuse future
> historians, there would be no way of "disproving"
> this...What you are doing is just an enormous waste of
> time. You don't even seem to realize that the Zalmoxis
> passage from Jordanes that you cited is an utterly
> confused hodge podge of no value whatever to
> historians except as minor evidence for its author's
> biography and psychology. I leave you on the "field
> of battle" with your multiple equine cadavers.
> Amen.****
> >
> >
> >
>

Apparently, one rule you should be sure to keep is to mark ironic
statements with a smiley. Peccavi, sorry. Obviously, "disproving" a
theory about the past is difficult, since you can't do experiments.
You will have to use internal consistency of the theory instead. And
Popper actually offers a secondary criteria, namely elegance.
A "short" theory should be preferred over a "long" one (measured by
some criteria as the number of characters needed to express it) and
the number of extra assumptions should be as small as possible. So,
George, I'm sorry to say it, but my theory will have to be preferred
over your extraterrestrial theory. ;-) (Please note the smiley).

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Amen to that. One could only add, since Sir Karl's name has been
taken in vain, that Popper's message was actually this: if you
immunise your theory against refutation by non-believers -- e.g. by
special pleading (such as claiming privileged status for your sources
of data), or by refusing to accept generally recognised methods and
standards (don't like the counterevidence? blame the instruments) --
you cease to do science. A statement that cannot be falsified is not
an invincible "working hypothesis" but rubbish.
>
> Piotr
>
>

I absolutely agree. Claiming as an article of faith special status
("utterly confused hodge podge of no value whatever" for one of the
sources, offering no further proof than that whoever doesn't agree
with your preconceived idea is an idiot is not science.
I sense some slight criticism of me in the remarks on
counterevidence. Do you you feel I have ignored counterevidence? And
if I have produced theories that are inherently non-refutable, how
can anyone have produced counterevidence to them? What are those
instruments I have blamed instead? Have I at any time refused to
accept "generally recognised methods and standards" (as opposed
to "generally recognised results")? I knew that sir Karl had been
knighted, but not that he had also been beatified? In what sense have
I taken his name in vain?

Torsten