(July 21, 2023 at 2:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 8:10 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Except that people who disagree with me are obviously making ad-hoc hypotheses and talking contradictory things.
My informatics professor Franjo Jović told me, essentially: "I mostly agree with you, however, I don't think it's plausible that up to 1.572 bits per consonant pair of collision entropy goes to morphology ('fleksija'). I think relatively little collision entropy goes to morphology. Thus, I think the p-value of that k-r pattern in Croatian river names is a lot closer to 1/17 than to 1/300.".
The Reddit user neuralbeans told me: "Maybe the collision entropy of the nouns in the Croatian language is a lot lower than the collision entropy of all the words in the Aspell word-list for the Croatian language. Have you checked that? Toponyms are nouns, and you should be comparing them to other nouns, and not to all the words in the Aspell word-list.".
Those are contradictory things. If my paper were seriously flawed, maybe people who disagree with me would point different things that are wrong with it. But they would not be talking contradictory things. Since they are talking contradictory things, I know my paper is not actually flawed, but that people are making up ad-hoc hypotheses.

Other people pointing out potential mistakes in your methodology is not the same as making ad hoc hypotheses.

Boru

Then what is "ad-hoc hypothesis"? It is inventing reasons why an experiment wouldn't work. Saying, in response to my paper, "Maybe the collision entropy of the nouns in the Croatian language is significantly lower than the collision entropy of all the words in the Aspell word-list.", seems like an obvious ad-hoc hypothesis. What magic would make it do that? How do you know it is not higher, rather than lower? It is not an ad-hoc hypothesis if you said that about the Swahili language, as, because of the noun classes, some two-consonant prefixes which are possible for verbs aren't possible for nouns, so it seems plausible that the collision entropy of consonant pairs is indeed lower in nouns than in all Swahili words. Suggesting that for a Swahili-like language is not baseless, but saying that for Croatian seems like a baseless ad-hoc hypothesis.

(July 21, 2023 at 2:42 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 1:32 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: My point is, if my paper was Flat-Earth-level wrong, I wouldn't get half a dozen of acedemics that I know personally to agree with me. Back when I was a Flat-Earther, I could not get anybody convinced by my arguments, much less academics. My paper is definitely not Flat-Earthism of the field of the Croatian toponyms.

Do you know what "grouping" is?

How is that relevant?

(July 21, 2023 at 3:04 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 2:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Other people pointing out potential mistakes in your methodology is not the same as making ad hoc hypotheses.

Boru

Then what is "ad-hoc hypothesis"? It is inventing reasons why an experiment wouldn't work. Saying, in response to my paper, "Maybe the collision entropy of the nouns in the Croatian language is significantly lower than the collision entropy of all the words in the Aspell word-list.", seems like an obvious ad-hoc hypothesis. What magic would make it do that? How do you know it is not higher, rather than lower? It is not an ad-hoc hypothesis if you said that about the Swahili language, as, because of the noun classes, some two-consonant prefixes which are possible for verbs aren't possible for nouns, so it seems plausible that the collision entropy of consonant pairs is indeed lower in nouns than in all Swahili words. Suggesting that for a Swahili-like language is not baseless, but saying that for Croatian seems like a baseless ad-hoc hypothesis.

No. An ad hoc hypothesis is inventing reasons to render an hypothesis unfalsifiable. Like this:

Hypothesis: Bigfoot exist.

Criticism: Show me one.

Ad hoc #1: Can’t - they can render themselves invisible.

Criticism: Well, then show me evidence - fur, scat, bones.

Ad hoc #2: No can do - Bigfoot are transdimensional beings and are able to make their evidence undetectable to humans.

Criticism: Photographs, videos, audio recordings?

Ad hoc #3: Those are all government fakes to hide the truth.

And so on. Ad hocs are meant support an hypothesis, not disprove it.

Boru

So, this runs in the family.

(July 21, 2023 at 2:47 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 2:02 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: And before that, you thought that everyone who talked about having been on an airplane was.....what?

Delusional. Like my grandmother who claimed to have been on airplane to Canada when, in reality, she couldn't leave her bed.

You thought millions of people were delusional?
Did you consider going to an airport and watch, with your own eyes, planes take off, or were you scared of finding out you were delusional?

(July 21, 2023 at 3:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 3:04 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Then what is "ad-hoc hypothesis"? It is inventing reasons why an experiment wouldn't work. Saying, in response to my paper, "Maybe the collision entropy of the nouns in the Croatian language is significantly lower than the collision entropy of all the words in the Aspell word-list.", seems like an obvious ad-hoc hypothesis. What magic would make it do that? How do you know it is not higher, rather than lower? It is not an ad-hoc hypothesis if you said that about the Swahili language, as, because of the noun classes, some two-consonant prefixes which are possible for verbs aren't possible for nouns, so it seems plausible that the collision entropy of consonant pairs is indeed lower in nouns than in all Swahili words. Suggesting that for a Swahili-like language is not baseless, but saying that for Croatian seems like a baseless ad-hoc hypothesis.

No. An ad hoc hypothesis is inventing reasons to render an hypothesis unfalsifiable. Like this:

Hypothesis: Bigfoot exist.

Criticism: Show me one.

Ad hoc #1: Can’t - they can render themselves invisible.

Criticism: Well, then show me evidence - fur, scat, bones.

Ad hoc #2: No can do - Bigfoot are transdimensional beings and are able to make their evidence undetectable to humans.

Criticism: Photographs, videos, audio recordings?

Ad hoc #3: Those are all government fakes to hide the truth.

And so on. Ad hocs are meant support an hypothesis, not disprove it.

Boru

I think it is essentially the same thing. The mainstream linguistics considers the river names that start with k-r (Krka, Korana, Kravarščica, Krapina, Krbavica, Kravica, two rivers named Karašica) to be unrelated, that this k-r pattern is accidental. My paper says: "That would imply that there is a significant probability of that k-r pattern occurring by chance. There isn't. Here is a simple experiment that shows that probability has to be somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17...". Neuralbeans says, in response to that, "Maybe that experiment is flawed because the collision entropy of the nouns is significantly lower than the collision entropy of all the words in the Croatian language.". Neuralbeans is essentially modifying mainstream linguistics to make it harder to falsify it. Measuring the collision entropy of only the nouns is a lot harder than simply measuring the collision entropy of all words in Aspell word-list.

(July 21, 2023 at 3:51 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 3:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: No. An ad hoc hypothesis is inventing reasons to render an hypothesis unfalsifiable. Like this:

Hypothesis: Bigfoot exist.

Criticism: Show me one.

Ad hoc #1: Can’t - they can render themselves invisible.

Criticism: Well, then show me evidence - fur, scat, bones.

Ad hoc #2: No can do - Bigfoot are transdimensional beings and are able to make their evidence undetectable to humans.

Criticism: Photographs, videos, audio recordings?

Ad hoc #3: Those are all government fakes to hide the truth.

And so on. Ad hocs are meant support an hypothesis, not disprove it.

Boru

I think it is essentially the same thing. The mainstream linguistics considers the river names that start with k-r (Krka, Korana, Kravarščica, Krapina, Krbavica, Kravica, two rivers named Karašica) to be unrelated, that this k-r pattern is accidental. My paper says: "That would imply that there is a significant probability of that k-r pattern occurring by chance. There isn't. Here is a simple experiment that shows that probability has to be somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17...". Neuralbeans says, in response to that, "Maybe that experiment is flawed because the collision entropy of the nouns is significantly lower than the collision entropy of all the words in the Croatian language.". Neuralbeans is essentially modifying mainstream linguistics to make it harder to falsify it. Measuring the collision entropy of only the nouns is a lot harder than simply measuring the collision entropy of all words in Aspell word-list.

It is NOT the same thing, not remotely. What is happening to you is that people are critiquing aspects of your paper and making suggestions. This is essentially an informal sort of peer review and is vital to scientific discourse.

Ad hoc would be if YOU kept adding new bits to your own theory every time it faced a criticism (to your credit, you haven’t done this).

Boru

(July 21, 2023 at 4:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 3:51 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: I think it is essentially the same thing. The mainstream linguistics considers the river names that start with k-r (Krka, Korana, Kravarščica, Krapina, Krbavica, Kravica, two rivers named Karašica) to be unrelated, that this k-r pattern is accidental. My paper says: "That would imply that there is a significant probability of that k-r pattern occurring by chance. There isn't. Here is a simple experiment that shows that probability has to be somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17...". Neuralbeans says, in response to that, "Maybe that experiment is flawed because the collision entropy of the nouns is significantly lower than the collision entropy of all the words in the Croatian language.". Neuralbeans is essentially modifying mainstream linguistics to make it harder to falsify it. Measuring the collision entropy of only the nouns is a lot harder than simply measuring the collision entropy of all words in Aspell word-list.

It is NOT the same thing, not remotely. What is happening to you is that people are critiquing aspects of your paper and making suggestions. This is essentially an informal sort of peer review and is vital to scientific discourse.

Ad hoc would be if YOU kept adding new bits to your own theory every time it faced a criticism (to your credit, you haven’t done this).

Boru

Don't you think that, to an experiment, you should respond with an experiment, rather than with speculation? I made an actual experiment, and neuralbeans is responding with nothing but speculation.

(July 21, 2023 at 3:05 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 2:42 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Do you know what "grouping" is?

How is that relevant?

People who believe one looney theory typically believe several, their beliefs tend to group in the looney conspiracy area. Thus your leaving flat-eartherism is not testament to your progress as it was most likely just a lateral move to other, similarly stupid things. That you no longer believe in a flat earth suggests credulity of your ideas is warranted because believing in flat-eartherism in the first place is symptomatic of the disease.

(July 21, 2023 at 5:00 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 4:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It is NOT the same thing, not remotely. What is happening to you is that people are critiquing aspects of your paper and making suggestions. This is essentially an informal sort of peer review and is vital to scientific discourse.

Ad hoc would be if YOU kept adding new bits to your own theory every time it faced a criticism (to your credit, you haven’t done this).

Boru

Don't you think that, to an experiment, you should respond with an experiment, rather than with speculation? I made an actual experiment, and neuralbeans is responding with nothing but speculation.

No. Place names in Croatia is a trivial topic. It isn’t incumbent upon other people to try to replicate your results. This isn’t cold fusion, ffs.

Boru