OK, I am sorry if I misinterpreted your behavior. It's possible that I've learned the wrong lesson from my experience on the Internet forums.You need to apologize if you want me to continue to respond to you.
Then, just like with the Flat Earth Theory, the constellations would have different shapes depending on where we look at them from. That is, assuming that prism-kind sky obeys the laws of physics.Fancy ridiculous prism-kinda sky dome could refract light from sun and stars in pretty much whatever way you want, and then you have the overt hologram claims.
It's more of an attempted falsification. It's a necessary part of science, right? The fact that it's done ensures there is a good reason to believe the consensus, that the apparent consensus is not just group-thinking. That's not done in pseudoscience.Then that shows disagreement in the field (lack of consensus) apparently.
Why would I, when you basically agree now that economics is likely not more reliable than linguistics is?Are you, or are you not, going to do a statistical analysis of published papers to prove your claims?
OK, now you are just being ridiculous. An ad-hoc hypothesis is:OR... another ad hoc exception was fabricated.
A: I have a dragon in my garage.
B: I would like to see it.
A: That won't work. It's invisible.
B: OK, then, let's spray it with paint.
A: That won't work either. It's incorporeal.
B: OK, let's then measure the temperature of the fire in his mouth.
A: That won't work either. That fire is heatless.
Ad-hoc hypotheses are, by definition, not testable, and they are made not to be testable.
This was like this:
A: I think the Havlik's Law is incorrect. Here is a relatively long list of words that appear to contradict it (a Proto-Slavic yer appears to be vocalized even though the Havlik's Law would predict it not to be).
B: Great! Let's analyze it... Those words don't really appear random. The vast majority of them are demonstrably ultimately from the Chakavian dialect of Croatian, and all or almost all of them have that unexpectedly vocalized yer in the first syllable. Instead of assuming the Havlik's Law is incorrect, we will have far better explanatory power if we assume it's correct, but that another sound change operated in the Chakavian dialect that made the yers in the first syllable vocalized regardless of the Havlik's law.
A: That would imply all the Chakavian words that had a yer in the first syllable in Proto-Slavic have the yer in the first syllable vocalized.
B: Are you aware of any counter-examples?
A: Not really.
B: Then maybe we have discovered another law. Let's publish it to see what other linguists who have studied it have to say about it.
It's like if you tried to predict the movements of charged balls. The Coulomb's Law will correctly predict it in most of the cases. However, once they are moving too fast, there will be apparent exceptions to it. And the magnetic force laws capable of explaining those apparent exceptions are in no way ad-hoc hypotheses.
Now, the special relativity is capable of explaining that the magnetic forces exist for the exactly same reason electrical forces exist. In linguistics, there is no such theoretical framework yet.
I mostly agree with that. Basic physics is without a doubt more certain than basic linguistics is.I just do not hold the kind of certainty as I would hold for chemistry or physics.
You can test the Torricelli's law with the equipment you have in your kitchen, and it's very hard to get the data wrong. You can also test the Havlik's Law yourself, however, you can't be as certain that the data you are dealing with isn't wrong.
Now, is the modern physics more certain than basic linguistics is? I don't really think so. Doing proper experiments about the subatomic particles is very hard, both because you need to have a complicated machinery for that, and because the only laws we have about how they move are probabilistic. So, why is it that we should believe that the physicists are likely to get things right? Maybe we should say that basic linguistics is about as certain as advanced physics is.
Like when I thought the horizon appearing to be rising as I climb is better evidence for the Earth being flat than the ships appearing to sink as they approach the horizon is for the Earth being round?You should tentatively stick with the consensus NOT just until you decide there's not a lot of good evidence for it, but until you have an actual alternative with BETTER evidence.
Consensus that isn't precise can be very misleading. Like, almost all the climate scientists agree that global warming is real and at least partly caused by humans. But, if people take it to mean all of the climate scientists agree global warming is more dangerous than a tyrannical government (as many people appear to), that's pretty dangerous.That's true, but consensus doesn't have to be that precise.
So, you basically agree with me now?Economics is also more politically charged than linguistics, which would be expected to motivate higher levels of disagreement.
How could it? Languages move way faster than genes do. If I get married, my wife and I can simply decide to speak English to our children despite both of us being Croatians, the genes can't stop us.Why do you think DNA analysis couldn't have predicted that?
Also, there are some 1st and 2nd century CE sources that mention Croatians as a Scythian tribe. Croatians gave up their language in favor of a Slavic dialect, which was a more prestigious language where they ended up being. Today, Croatian is a Slavic language with few, if any, loan-words from the language of the Scythian (Indo-Iranian) Croatians.
Similarly, the language of the ancient Bulgarians was a Turkic language, yet the language of modern Bulgarians is a Slavic language with few, if any, loanwords from the Turkic Bulgarian.
What do you think happened to the ancient languages of modern-day Romania? That Romans killed all men and raped all the wives so that people would start speaking Latin there? People gradually dropped their languages in favor of the distantly related but culturally more prestigious Latin.
Why aren't you an agnostic about it being necessary to eat meat?Why can't you just be agnostic to varying degrees?
If you claim something is necessary, the burden of proof is on you. Especially if you want to force it onto other people.That assumes a world without those things in some form is magically possible. There's no reason to believe it is.
Besides, isn't the fact that Somalia was an anarchy for decades without anything terrible happening (if anything, it got better), and that Ireland was an anarchy for more than a century without anything terrible happening enough reason to think it's possible?
Which, if it's impossible for government to use science because of the way science works, is going to be very counter-productive.We need to push government to use more science and less dogma.
Sounds to me much more like what's going on in Venezuela (where there is a very powerful government controlling everything) than what would be going on in an actual anarchy.which is that a new one pops up that's usually (but not always) worse.