(July 23, 2023 at 12:22 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(July 23, 2023 at 9:37 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: And the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia aren't doing a multitude of ad hoc hypotheses to keep their theories from being falsified? Inventing that nouns in the Croatian language have significantly lower collision entropy than all of the words in the Aspell word list (a hypothesis which can be tested only by a very complicated experiment, which they aren't doing), inventing some unarticulated reasons why the information theory wouldn't apply to the names of places...
I honestly don’t know enough about the mainstream interpretation of Croatian place names (although I’m sure it’s an absolute HUGE topic [sarcasm]) to answer what those proponents are or are not doing, but offering a suggestion to your methodology is not an ad hoc hypothesis.
What’s actually going on here is that you, by rejecting all questions/suggestions/criticisms regarding your conclusions, are demonstrating that you want your conclusions to be accepted as they stand, which is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. You don’t really care if you’re right, you simply want other people to accept that you are.
If you were doing proper science, you’d take their suggestions into consideration, run your ‘experiment’ again. Since you steadfastly refuse to do so, I’m forced to conclude that you don’t really care about Croatian place names.
Boru
But consider the Levy's criticisms of Semmelweis. One of the Levy's main criticisms of Semmelweis was "Why didn't Semmelweis perform a simpler and more convincing experiment, to stop all the anatomical work?". So, was there really a burden of proof on Semmelweis to perform yet another experiment so that Levy might be convinced? Of course not. And neuralbeans is asking me not to do a simpler experiment so that he might be convinced, but some very complicated experiment.
