(September 15, 2022 at 9:36 am)arewethereyet Wrote: So, you are sharing the same things in multiple places? And still, no one is buying into it?

Well, I guess I am like Semmelweis. Semmelweis tried to apply statistics where it was not usually used and, even though he was right, almost nobody bought into his ideas. He received a lot of nonsensical arguments against using statistics in medicine, just like I am receiving a lot of nonsensical arguments against using statistics in onomastics. It is unfortunate.

Yeah. Must be.

(September 15, 2022 at 9:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Yeah. Must be.

Yeah. People in soft sciences do not understand the value of statistics, or even of the scientific method. If you try to follow the scientific method in historical linguistics, you get mocked because of that, rather than praised.

Interesting topic of which to become obsessed.

(September 15, 2022 at 10:54 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 15, 2022 at 9:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Yeah.  Must be.

Yeah. People in soft sciences do not understand the value of statistics, or even of the scientific method. If you try to follow the scientific method in historical linguistics, you get mocked because of that, rather than praised.

Have you ever, even for a moment, entertained the possibility that you're being mocked because you're wrong?

Boru

(September 16, 2022 at 3:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 15, 2022 at 10:54 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Yeah. People in soft sciences do not understand the value of statistics, or even of the scientific method. If you try to follow the scientific method in historical linguistics, you get mocked because of that, rather than praised.

Have you ever, even for a moment, entertained the possibility that you're being mocked because you're wrong?

Boru

If I am wrong, I am certainly less wrong than mainstream linguistics is. Mainstream linguistics does not follow the scientific method at all when etymologizing the toponyms, I do.

(September 15, 2022 at 11:10 pm)Tomato Wrote: Interesting topic of which to become obsessed.

What does that mean?

(September 16, 2022 at 5:14 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 16, 2022 at 3:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Have you ever, even for a moment, entertained the possibility that you're being mocked because you're wrong?

Boru

If I am wrong, I am certainly less wrong than mainstream linguistics is. Mainstream linguistics does not follow the scientific method at all when etymologizing the toponyms, I do.

That’s not what I asked you.

Boru

(September 16, 2022 at 5:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 16, 2022 at 5:14 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: If I am wrong, I am certainly less wrong than mainstream linguistics is. Mainstream linguistics does not follow the scientific method at all when etymologizing the toponyms, I do.

That’s not what I asked you.

Boru

I mean, I have considered the possibility that I am wrong. In fact, I am probably wrong, but there are different levels of wrongness. One who tries to follow the scientific method to the degree of calculating p-values is less wrong than one who does not even try to follow the scientific method.

(September 16, 2022 at 6:02 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 16, 2022 at 5:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That’s not what I asked you.

Boru

I mean, I have considered the possibility that I am wrong. In fact, I am probably wrong, but there are different levels of wrongness. One who tries to follow the scientific method to the degree of calculating p-values is less wrong than one who does not even try to follow the scientific method.

Since the possibility that you are wrong is admitted, perhaps that’s the reason you’re being mocked. And FYI, employing the scientific method doesn’t necessarily lead to correct conclusions.

Boru