From: george knysh
Message: 65661
Date: 2010-01-16
--- On Sat, 1/16/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
.
As I have tried to get across to you on several occasions I never try to prove a hypothesis, since there's no way you can do that. What I do is I propose theses and then try to disprove the other, existing theses. This is a formal description of what people actually do, they don't 'prove' things in one unitary process. To lean back and demand 'proof' and then reject everything the proponent comes up with the subjective reason that is hasn't convinced me is of course a fool-proof method of stopping any new theory. So, here's the deal: if in the future you try to bait me with 'You haven't proved...' I won't respond. If you try 'This is wrong because...' I will. Clear enough?
****GK: The problem with you ,Torsten, is thast you seem incapable of understanding that what you consider "disproof" is scientifically inadequate. The standard view, which apparently dissatisfies you, is that there is no evidence of any significant Sarmatian influx into the area of the Przeworsk culture. You have been unable to point to anything except "inhumations", and that per se, is not a defining Sarmatian trait. But your subjective desire to disprove the obvious is not backed up by any objective evidence, and this is a simple fact. I think that in the absence of anything further, your decision to keep quiet is not a bad one.*****
> Where your source states that there might be something to look at
> you advance unfounded conclusions.
What you state my source states is what I've stated all the time. The thing I propose is something that should be looked at.
****GK: Do let us know if your "looking" produces anything more satisfactory than a vague longing for unavailable evidence.*****