Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales

Harlan Messinger wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:52 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If that's true, then it's a valid factor to be considered.

Why didn't you say so the first time? instead of maiming
my argument?

You're
whining about ideas being rejected for no reason, just because they're
new ideas. Or are you under the impression that all new ideas should be
blindly accepted, without regard to their validity?

They should be discussed by means of scientific
arguments.

YOU have to present a scientific argument in the first place.

It came to me that this is the crux of the matter. Science *is* a meta-level, one of the many possible frameworks within which a claim can be set. Others are superstition, imagination, divination, drug-induced hallucination, psychosis, invention of facts to reach a preselected conclusion, and ignoring facts that don't support a preselected conclusion. When you say your claims "should be discussed by means of scientific arguments", YOU are making a statement about the meta-level. And I *agree* with you that that's the appropriate meta-level for any kind of scholarly study--but the problem is that it *isn't* the meta-level within which your claims are set. You're whining that others aren't dignifying your NON-scientific claims with scientific discussion. The meta-level is very much relevant--it's key to the whole thing--and you presuming to tell me that *I* should stick to the scientific meta-level, while you go on operating on non-scientific meta-levels yourself.
.