[tied] Re: Grimm's Law is about to expire (Collinge 1985, p. 267, T

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory>
> ...........
> > "Mainstream opponents to the OIT (e.g. Hock[11]) agree that while
> > the data of linguistic isoglosses do make the OIT improbable it is
> > not enough to unequivocally reject it[12], so that it may be
> > considered a viable alterative to mainstream views, similar to the
> > status of the Armenian or Anatolian hypotheses."
>
> Only if one uses a much looser definition of "viable" than is normal
> in academic and scientific discourse. Accepting hypotheses which are
> considered improbable but which cannot be unequivocally rejected
> would be a violation of Oakham's Razor, and would open the door to
> all sorts of crank scholarship.

Apart from the inadvisable in attempting to violate a razor, Occam's
wasn't about improbabilia, but about the number of entia. Appealing to
the a priori sense of improbability of any scientific community will
make its field forever sterile.


Torsten