Re: *ka/unt- etc, new conquests

At 5:46:39 AM on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, Torsten wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

[...]

>>>>> I am not your errand boy. If you want to know what I
>>>>> mean, read what I wrote.

>>>> I'm reading it. And then you tell me I read it wrong,
>>>> since you rarely if ever mention if you are writing
>>>> something as wild speculation / working hypothesis /
>>>> part of your theory.

>>> That's exactly what it is.

>> Um, those are three different things.

> No.

Of course they are, both in everyday usage and specifically
in science. If you really don't distinguish them, it's no
wonder that discussion with you is generally a waste of
time. This would also explain your annoying habit of
presenting your ideas in the language of working hypothesis
or even theory but failing to make any sort of coherent case
for them and scurrying for the cover of wild speculation
when pressed for (or with) real evidence.

[...]

>> Or, from a more pragmatical viewpoint...

>> Wild speculation: "I'll be tossing out some thoughts.
>> Interrupt me if you hear anything that makes sense."

>> Working hypothesis: "I can explain this as well as that
>> by assuming B. Can you add anything in support of or in
>> opposition to B?"

>> Theory: "We have establish'd from plenty of evidence that
>> this is how it goes, and counterarguments have been
>> rebuked thus far."

> Wrong. You can't establish anything from evidence. Popper.

You're dodging the obvious intent by quibbling about a
careless expression of the idea. Replace the first clause
by 'We have plenty of evidence that validates this
theoretical framework'.

Brian