From: tgpedersen
Message: 36237
Date: 2005-02-11
>on
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Culver
> <christopher_culver@...> wrote:
>
>
> > In my studies of comparative Indo-European linguistics, I am
> somewhat
> > confused as to which scholars hold which views. I do gather, for
> > instance, that (...) Still, how other scholars view these
> assertions is
> > unclear.
>
>
> This is a sad state of affairs, as I see it due largely to the
> confluence of a number of problematic traditions:
>
>
> The first is a tradition of behavioral autism. Scholars prefer
> developing their own systems over sorting out what really is going
> and carrying out scholarly dialogue. It is my impression that thisof
> has become worse with time.
>
>
> The second is a tradition of truly heart-breaking authoritarianism.
> In historical (and not only historical) linguistics as normally
> carried out in institutional settings, the boss is always right.
> Disagreeing with the boss is near-universally treated as a breach
> ethical and professional standards meriting exclusion from thegroup.
> Contrary to what is often believed and despite local exceptions,this
> tradition is not limited to Germany and does not seem to be on thefeel
> wane.
>
>
> The third is a persistent tradition of not *weighing* but *feeling*
> evidence. This leads to a bias in the direction of the theories one
> was taught as a student, because they are familiar and therefore
> right.theory
>
>
> I find the results of all this extremely depressing. Laryngeal
> was formulated in the seventies of the nineteenth century. How manyOne could probably spin some interesting insults from the fact that
> generations were needed before it was taken seriously by a majority
> of members of the profession? What real science can claim such a
> dismal record?
>
>
> And wherever you look you'll find similar examples.
>