--- "Brian M. Scott" <
BMScott@...> wrote:
> At 2:02:20 PM on Sunday, April 6, 2008, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rick
> McCallister"
> >>> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> >>>> Nostratics has most definitely not been proven.
> There
> >>>> is not even a uniform definition of what
> composes
> >>>> Nostratic. There are no universally acceptible
> >>>> proto-languages for most postulated members of
> >>>> Nostratic. [...]
>
> >>> Nostratic has been irrefutably demonstrated.
>
> >> So you say, and yet refutation sits quoted above
> this
> >> line, and can be found other places as well.
>
> > No disrespect to Rick but he is simply not
> competent to
> > judge the issue.
To Pat and anyone else of his ilk
I have a PhD in Spanish from the University of Texas
at Austin, which included a healthy dose of
linguistics courses. My specialization in literary
theory includes an ever greater grounding in bullshit
detection.
I have over 50 publications, many of which can be
found on the web --all linked to and previously
published in refereed journals.
Where is your doctorate from?
How many publications do you have in refereed
journals?
I don't delve deeper into linguistics because I have
too much to do in Latin American literature but I
definitely have the qualifications and background to
do so.
You need to learn how to understand the difference
between facts, suppositions and opinions. If an idea
doesn't even have an agreed on theoretical framework,
it's not even a valid hypothesis. Mass comparison is
nothing more than a preliminary screening process. Any
comparison must take into account valid taxonomies and
not just superficial resemblances. Any long range
project must go through the steps of setting up a
valid and agreed upon and falsifiable theoretical
framework. As Thomas Kuhn and WVO Quine and other
pointed out, science is largely a social construct
that relies upon agreed upon procedures and
foundational knowledge and practices, i.e. a paradigm.
Facts must be organized in accordance with the
scientific paradigm --at least until a paradigm shift
occurs. But you're no Einstein.
>
> > The last time I made an informal survey, the
> professional
> > members of the list semmed willing to entertain
> the idea
> > of Nostratic but considered it unproven.
>
> Which hardly suggests that 'Nostratic has been
> irrefutably
> demonstrated'.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com