Re: [tied] Re: Vandals
- At 5:16:52 AM on Sunday, August 31, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>--- In email@example.com, george knysh <gknysh@...>[...]
>> Torsten is not a man of science but an ideologist,George is right: what you do isn't science, à la Popper or
> Not really. I stick to Popper's model.
>> [He] is only interested in finding evidence in scienceIf you were a real scientist, you'd also be interested in
>> which supports this prejudice.
> Of course.
subjecting your 'theories' to rigorous testing.
> 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
>> Four of his favourite techniques are :Absolutely not. Neither Popperism nor naive
>> (1) the reversal of responsibility: i.e. he makes an
>> unproved assertion and then expects you to disprove it;
falsificationism (which seems closer to what you actually
have in mind) says anything about where the onus lies. 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, and a jackass because eventually he's bound
to be caught in an obvious blunder, probably sooner rather
than later. 'Prove me wrong' is the crackpot's motto.
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.
Between your thoroughly unscientific approach and your
refusal to do even the most basic testing of your pet
conjectures, it's impossible either to take you seriously on
most of your favorite topics or to avoid displaying a
certain amount of exasperation. I do occasionally do your
work for you, when it's easy or when something piques my
interest, but your scientific irresponsibility still pisses
me off, and sometimes it shows.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>I just learned (from Kuhn's review of Krahe's book) that adua- is
> > "It is not clear whether the populations which Caesar consider to
> > be Germanic also called themselves that. The Roman historian
> > Tacitus suggests in his De origine et situ Germanorum (98 n.Chr.)
> > [above footnote] that the name came from Caesar himself and only
> > later was taken over by the local population: 'Some assure [...]
> > that more [ancestors] have sprung from this god and that there
> > are thus more original names: Marsi, Gambrivii, Suebi, Vandilii,
> > and that those are the genuine old names; that besides the
> > designation 'Germani' is of recent date and only came about a
> > short time ago, since those who came first across the Rhine and
> > drove off the Gauls and now (are called) Tongeren, then were
> > called Germani ...' Tacitus refers in this passage very clearly
> > to Caesar. In Tacitus' time the territory of the Eburones who had
> > been exterminated by Caesar was inhabited by the Tongeren
> > (Tungri)"
> New proposal: 'Those who came first across the Rhine and drove off
> the Gauls and now (are called) Tungri' and 'then were called
> Germani' are the Cimbri/Teutones. That would counter your objection
> that Caesar knew of a permanent presence (without Ariovistus) of
> the Germani: it is another people, now called Tungri (and living in
> Aduatuci, now Tongern).
another of those Old European (ie. Venetic) roots. The name Tungri
might be from later arrivals: Turingi, who must somehow be (feel)
related to the Cimbi in Aduatuci.