Re: Vandals

...

>
> >> [He] is only interested in finding evidence in science
> >> which supports this prejudice.
>
> > Of course.
>
> If you were a real scientist, you'd also be interested in
> subjecting your 'theories' to rigorous testing.

That's why I offer them here.

> > And it's 'theory'.
>
> Perhaps; but it most certainly is prejudice, as you have in
> fact acknowledged in connection with some of the off-topic
> (political) threads.

The view you, George and others represent insists that those sources
concerning the history of Germanic-speaking peoples which refer to
native traditions should be dismissed out of hand, thus treated
differently from other sources, a prejudice which is ideologically
motivated as can be seen in George's past insistence that I am an
'Odinist'. Since I'm against prejudice, I can't accept that view.

> [...]
>
> >> Four of his favourite techniques are :
>
> >> (1) the reversal of responsibility: i.e. he makes an
> >> unproved assertion and then expects you to disprove it;
>
> > Popper.
>
> Absolutely not. Neither Popperism nor naive
> falsificationism (which seems closer to what you actually
> have in mind) says anything about where the onus lies.

I did read Popper, but naive falsificationism I haven't heard of
before. Do you have a reference or did you just make that up?

> In the real world a 'scientist' who doesn't take some
> responsibility for testing his assertions is an
> irresponsible jackass: irresponsible because he's wasting
> everyone's time,

Actually, my claim that I just leave the disproving to you guys is
exaggerated; I usually provide reasons why I think something is the case.

> and a jackass because eventually he's bound to be caught in an
> obvious blunder, probably sooner rather than later.

Everybody commits a blunder every once in a while. I usually admit
them ("oops"); I don't eg. insist on an interpretation that is based
on a claim which is patently false, like the claim that Lat. 'quidam'
means "all".


'Prove me wrong' is the crackpot's motto.

I thought it was 'Don't prove me wrong'?

> By the way, George left out at least one: routinely
> appealing to invisible 'data', justified on the grounds that
> it belonged to an unrecorded 'low' register.

Please don't misrepresent me. I sometimes posit words in low register;
I never call that 'data', they are proposals for earlier forms, and
that is what historical linguistics is about.

> Between your thoroughly unscientific approach and your
> refusal to do even the most basic testing of your pet
> conjectures,

I thought your claim was that my 'unscientific approach' consisted in
my 'refusal to do even the most basic testing of your pet
conjectures'? What's gotten between them now?

BTW your critique has an interesting parallel in that of the Catholic
church against Galileo's Dialogues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy

> it's impossible either to take you seriously on
> most of your favorite topics or to avoid displaying a
> certain amount of exasperation.

I understand you. I would be exasperated in your situation too.

> I do occasionally do your work for you, when it's easy or when
> something piques my interest,

It is much appreciated.

> but your scientific irresponsibility still pisses
> me off, and sometimes it shows.

Irresponsibility?
But I know the feeling, sometimes people say stuff I just know is
wrong, and I can't find a way to disprove it, but then I think that
perhaps the reason is the other guy is right, and I feel much better.


Torsten