Re: [tied] Re: searching for common words for all today's languages

On 2006-02-10 10:19, tgpedersen wrote:

>>Not really, no. You at least give the strong impression
>>that you're taking some connection as the default position
>>and arguing that anyone wishing to maintain a contrary view
>>is obliged to eliminate pairs one at a time. This is
>>methodologically backwards.
>>
>
>
> One shouldn't act on impressions. My view is a collection of sets of
> lookalikes is something to be explained, one way or the other.

Fortuitous resemblance is the default explanation, and will remain the
best one until somebody demonstrates that this kind of lookalikeness is
unlikely to have arisen by chance. Which, esentially, gets us back to
the comparative method. As Brian pointed out, it's the duty of the
proponent to _demonstrate_ a connection, and you can't shift the burden
of proof on a critic who denies your claim. It's a logical fallacy to
insist that something should be considered true just because it hasn't
been proven otherwise.

Piotr