Re: OIT and Atlantis

"Dean_Anderson" <dean_anderson@...> wrote:
<<I think its important to separate critical examination of these
issues based on informed research and the past work of reputable
scholars from the wild, unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable!)
claims...>>

I'm afraid maybe you don't realize that the latter can effectively pretend to
be the former, especially in connection with such ideas as the "Indian
Urheimat." And I'm also afraid that you don't realize that some of the
things you are saying seem to cross the line between the two.

"Dean_Anderson" <dean_anderson@...> also wrote:
<<In that they show evidence that South Asian civilization is much
older than previously thought, it is now considered *possible* that
the Vedas are also much older. If so, then certain PIE theories need
to be revised and an Indian Urheimat once again becomes an option.... >>

I'm sorry. Once again, you haven't explained in the least how it is any more
"an option" than it was before. The problem seems to be that you don't under
stand what "PIE" and "Urheimat" mean.

This may surprise you, but within the framework of comparative linguistic
analysis, if "the Vedas" were 15,000 years old, it would not change Vedic's
relationship to *PIE.

That is because there is nothing ABSOLUTE about the dating that this analysis
provides. The relative chronology provided by the comparative method however
is a matter of mathematical necessity, much in the manner that biological
genetic descent or chemical reactions are.

Now there ARE valid ways to challenge the application of the comparative
method to particular data that could yield different results. But NOTHING
you have mentioned does this in anyway.

So, when you assert the "re-evaluation of the India Urheimat Theory by
mainstream scholars... primarily due to the recent archaeological and
geological discoveries,..." you are simply advertising something that has
little scientific validity. Your "new data" is largely scientifically
irrelevant and therefore advances nothing and does not justify the importance
you attach to it.

It may not be your intention to do this, but there is nothing wrong in my
informing you that you are doing it. And if you inform yourself, you will
realize why little or nothing you are saying justifies any more re-evaluation
than should be routine in any truly scientific discipline, with or without
the "discoveries" you mention.

"Dean_Anderson" <dean_anderson@...> also wrote:
<<Barring a major revision of linguistic thinking which is unlikely at this
time. :-)>>

Is there any reason you can think of for such a major revision? Can you
mention any thing? Or is this "rhetorical?" And you keep on saying things
like "it is all just in the very beginning stages of investigation." As if
something came up that justified any such "beginnings." There are debates
constantly going on, and there is nothing you've brought up that suggests
that the idea of India as the IE homeland deserves any more focus than it had
before.

<<It's unfortunate all of your very insightful comments are mixed with
this kind of rhetoric. It doesn't really add much to the debate. Well
actually some of it is amusing but it does tend to obscure the issues.>>

You may not realize it, but all your talk about "re-evaluating" and
"rethinking" sounds like rhetoric, too -- despite your disclaimers. And the
problem here is not obscuring the issues. It's your not understanding them.

S. Long