From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 56928
Date: 2008-04-06
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya
>
> --- "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 are not too busy to frequently irrelevantly comment.
***
> 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.
***
I have told you dozens of times that I do not do "mass comparison".
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
If you have any questions about correct methodology, ask away.
If you had ever looked at what I am doing, you could not falsely accuse me
of mass comparison.
***
> > > 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
***
I have already responded to that observation.
Patrick
***