Names of places in Croatia

[The Grand Nudger]

The mainstream interpretation of the croation names of places, being that the yugoslav war happened.

Science!

[Angrboda]

Your refusal to even consider emendations to your paper is also non-scientific. Six of one...

Boru

I think it is obvious who is really being more scientific: is it me or is it the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia. Proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia claim that that k-r pattern in the Croatian river names is a coincidence without even attempting to calculate the p-value. I have made an experiment which suggests that the p-value is somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17. Even if my experiment is flawed, I am still being more scientific than the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the Croatian names of places.

I've highlighted the area where you got offtrack for you.

[FlatAssembler]

The mainstream interpretation of the croation names of places, being that the yugoslav war happened.

Science!

Well, I think the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia says nothing about the Yugoslav Wars. Mate Kapović, who is a proponent of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia, and also a prominent person in left-wing politics, is famous for denying the Bleiburg Massacre in World War 2. However, he did not use the names of places to argue for that. And, as far as I know, he said nothing about Yugoslav Wars.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, if some batshit lefty does it, it's cool..amiright? That's the underlying scientific principle here.

[FlatAssembler]

Well, if some batshit lefty does it, it's cool..amiright?  That's the underlying scientific principle here.

Why would he be batshit? I think his linguistic work is brilliant.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who cares? Like I said before, the only interesting thing about your theory is the one thing you've learned not to talk about. This thread will turn into a "debate" about the weather in kansas before you just own your own silly shit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Your refusal to even consider emendations to your paper is also non-scientific. Six of one...

Boru

I think it is obvious who is really being more scientific: is it me or is it the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia. Proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia claim that that k-r pattern in the Croatian river names is a coincidence without even attempting to calculate the p-value. I have made an experiment which suggests that the p-value is somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17. Even if my experiment is flawed, I am still being more scientific than the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the Croatian names of places.

And yet you won’t even consider suggestion to modify your ‘experiment’. Refusal to admit even the potential of error isn’t science, it’s hidebound dogmatism.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

I think it is obvious who is really being more scientific: is it me or is it the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia. Proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia claim that that k-r pattern in the Croatian river names is a coincidence without even attempting to calculate the p-value. I have made an experiment which suggests that the p-value is somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17. Even if my experiment is flawed, I am still being more scientific than the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the Croatian names of places.

And yet you won’t even consider suggestion to modify your ‘experiment’. Refusal to admit even the potential of error isn’t science, it’s hidebound dogmatism.

Boru

OK, fine, I've started a thread about the neuralbeans'es suggestion on a few Internet forums, to see if anybody has done some research about it:
https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/47201/20821
https://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?p=99...st99311279

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope. You have precisely one thing to say, the rest is noise.

[FlatAssembler]

I think it is obvious who is really being more scientific: is it me or is it the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia. Proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia claim that that k-r pattern in the Croatian river names is a coincidence without even attempting to calculate the p-value. I have made an experiment which suggests that the p-value is somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17. Even if my experiment is flawed, I am still being more scientific than the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the Croatian names of places.

And yet you won’t even consider suggestion to modify your ‘experiment’. Refusal to admit even the potential of error isn’t science, it’s hidebound dogmatism.

Boru

I don't think I am being "dogmatic". I don't think Semmelweis was being dogmatic when he refused to listen to the Levy's suggestion "Why not perform a simpler and more convincing experiment, to simply stop all the autopsies?". In fact, I don't think Levy could be described as "dogmatic" either, I think Levy was a positivist, and positivism rejects seemingly-magical explanations (such as the Semmelweis'es theory of cadaverous particles in blood causing death). If anybody, Benjamin Rush was being dogmatic.