Re: Greek Psi

frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Test case" implies falsifiability. You keep stating proudly that your
conjectures are unfalsifiable, meaning that they are immune to testing.
You don't seem to understand what you are talking about at all.

BIR means fur, especially the fur on which a newborn was laid
(a peculiar meaning imposed by the permutation group, for,
as I said many times, Magdalenian words don't come alone
but in groups). The word has many derivatives, also of the
second and third degree - a great many derivatives I listed
up in five subsequent messages in my thread Magdalenian
experiment (near the begin of that thread, to be retrieved
via the Google interface of sci.lang). Yesterday I heard
Bob Dylan's song Man Gave Name to All the Animals and
was amused about the first animal he namd: man saw an
animal that liked to growl and had furry hair, so he thought
he will name it a bear ... That's exactly my explanation of
bear as the furry one, provider of the best fur, thick, longhaired,
soft and warm. My explanation can't be falsified and disproved
by anyone.

Which makes it useless. So as I said before: that's fine if you want to indulge in useless mind games. Just don't mistake them for science.

And nobody could provide new and better evidence
for the PIE explanation of bear as the brown one, which, in my
opinion, is a lame explanation, someone looked up the six
homonyms *bher- and thought *bher- 'brown' fit best for the
bear. I can easily unite the six *bher- homonyms under BIR,

Yes, when you decide that reality is whatever you imagine it to be, obviously you can do whatever you want, but its effect is confined to your own mind.

and as fur very often is brown, also this aspect is included
in my explanation. You Americans like competition, but not
in sci.lang, you want PIE being the only language model,

No, we want claims to be supported by science. If your claims aren't falsifiable, then they aren't science, they are useless. Come up with something falsifiable AND that provides a better explanation of affairs than the conventional PIE one and then people will pay attention to you. Better yet, do it without already having demonstrated yourself to be someone who continues to espouse some of his claims even after he's been told that established fact contradicts them, because credibility is how you get people to listen to you in the first place. Unfortunately, you've blown it on that account.

There's something I've realized is really galling about your position in all of this. You go on and on about your *entitlement* to your ideas, and at the same time you endlessly scold people for hold *their* ideas and complaining bitterly that they won't give any credence to yours. Everyone's basis for ignoring your claims is science, a really strong basis that requires no justification. Well, perhaps *you* have no appreciation for the distinction between science and that which you do, or perhaps you think there is no distinction. In that case the situation becomes one of us believing what we believe as distinct from what you believe. In that case, then: how dare someone like you, who claims the product of his mind to be the truth by fiat and rejects anything that contradicts it, criticize anyone else for holding just as strongly to their beliefs and rejecting yours? Your double standard, your hypocrisy is revealed.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues
    ... When science offers an "explanation", what other meaning is there ... Substitute for no counter-argument or ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Kent Hovinds doctoral dissertation
    ... type of thing that counts as an explanation. ... scientists attempt to understand things. ... I already opffered considerably more evidence than you of your ... you show why faith is incompatible with science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is a software engineer?
    ... provide any explanation of why the experiment "works", ... As to whether this is indicative of some correlation between its theoretical concepts and reality at some level, opinions are divided, from those who claim it gives 'strong evidence' that reality is in fact like science says it is, to those who claim it says nothing at all about the real nature of reality, Its only a means of foretelling how that will behave. ... The question is what is a software engineer? ... You should note that this is why computer *scientists* are such an infernal waste of space. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science tries to explain WHY and how. ... Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. ... that's just the nature of biology is' ... a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science tries to explain WHY and how. ... Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. ... that's just the nature of biology is' ... a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)