As i said this is work in progress.
Doesn't excuse it from scrutiny. You can't make a theory correct by fiddling with it to make it impervious to counterargument-- the basic ideas in the theory may still be wrong. The fact that you may be able to argue convincingly doesn't mean it's necessarily right. In the end, what matters is whether it is actually better supported by the evidence than other theories are--
only when you just consider your very limited selective evidence does your theory appear to make sense. Otherwise, the standard theory is much more widely supported.
But i don't think i am wrong. What would be the point in me presenting a theory here for validation if i thought it was wrong? Use logic please if you want to talk science
Actually, science involves being wrong a lot. Many hypotheses are put forward for testing because we want to know whether they are correct, and in some cases they're put forward specifically for the purpose of proving them wrong.
Regardless, there is a huge distinction between whether you may be right scientifically and whether you believe you are right intuitively. The latter is irrelevant to science, and it often becomes a problem. This is a major dilemma for scientists, certainly. At some point you just want to have
the theory. But that doesn't mean in any way that you have found it.
I am open to that possibility. This is what the point of review and validation is all about. You present your theory, describe the system or logic used to arrive to it as well as data on which base your theory.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that in this case you are right.
So you know where I stand on that.
Not so much. You have a lot of apparently scattered ideas based on selective evidence, and I'm not sure that overall it fits together or what the conclusions would be even if we assume that there are conclusions to be made from the argument.
This is work in progress and i have pile of data which is still not publish.
This is not going to get published. It won't stand up to peer review. It's an exercise in a personal agenda to show that something works that you think intuitively should work, but it's against much better established theories, and it is not convincing. Further, and I genuinely don't mean to be offensive in this, many of your claims indicate a complete lack of understanding of certain central ideas in the field. If you want to prove something wrong, you must: 1) directly address it (rather than just navigating around it in your new theory), and 2) have a deep understanding of the existing theory and the evidence that supports it. If you want to show that the world is round, then you must also show that such a theory explains why the world appears to be flat.
As for the natural language theory, I have presented part of it and in bad way, i admit it. I will write the summary today or tomorrow, describing what i the theory states and why i believe that the theory is valid. I have presented some data which supports my theory. I have a lot more data available, and i will be presenting it here as i find time. You can use my theory, and the data i supply to support it, in any way you want. You can try to disprove my theory, and please do so, but use logic, and analysis and not quotes, and slogans. Show me where and why am i wrong. Show me what the alternative "right" thing should be.
I don't get it. Why shouldn't we use quotes? The idea is that we refer to existing literature. In fact, you're the one citing most of the literature here (often from Wikipedia). It goes both ways.
You're defensive and under the very wrong impression that we're just trying to blindly follow existing assumptions. That's how you justify continuing with a theory that just doesn't hold up-- you deny that the existing theories are anything more than lies. That's a huge problem, and it's frustrating. I'll be happy to let you just continue with that, but there's a point (pretty soon) where there's not much more to discuss with it.
As every scientist i believe that my theory is right.
Incorrect assumption! See above. You appear to have faith, not science.
I spent lots of time and effort researching it and putting it together.
Ultimately irrelevant. I could come up with some fairly complicated reasons why PIE is the lost language of Atlantis, but it doesn't matter how much effort I put into that-- it won't ever be correct.
You will not find one scientist who will work on a theory, and present it to public, if he thinks the theory is wrong. What would be the point of that.
Scientists believe their work will contribute something to the greater knowledge of the field. We might be somewhat upset if our personal theories are wrong, but it is only counterproductive to rely on them being right. Often scientific research involves considering a theory and an alternative theory, discussion about the two, and then conclusions about which one seems best.
Sure, plenty of scientists are guilty of having an agenda to push forward a particular theory, but usually that is based on their belief that the theory really does hold up scientifically-- if it becomes apparent that they were wrong, they'll move on.
But not everyone is right about everything. Not all theories are valid, but a lot of times you need external input to see your mistake. I am completely prepared to accept that i am wrong completely or partially.
Ok, so how should we convince you? No one here would tell you not to consider these ideas, but we would try to convince you why they won't end up being the right ones. They are simply inconsistent with everything else that is understood, even things that you probably are using yourself as part of your argument.
But i will not accept that i am wrong just because you or someone else says so. You will need to show me and everyone else that i am wrong and elaborate why. And you will have to do it using logical arguments. If i am found wrong, so be it. Let's get to work of me trying to prove that i am right and you trying to prove that i am wrong. We can both learn a lot from it, i believe.
The best way to approach that would be for you to start reading the existing literature about the Comparative Method in reconstruction and trying to understand what the sum of all of the data suggests, rather than selective evidence that is (misleadingly) compatible with your theory. A theory must be supported by positive evidence and not unsupported by negative evidence.
Posts like this are why it's harder and harder to take you seriously:
Are you blind or just out of your mind? Have you ever seen cherry? And what exactly is this root of kerasos *ker if not blood? Do you trust your books more than your logic and your eyes?
The "your books" here are based on very careful reconstructions that in the majority of cases can be seen with confidence to rule out other correspondences. You seem to prefer eyeballing the data for what looks like evidence for your theory rather than actually taking on the data based on more general patterns, such as sound change. This is a major methodological problem!
I do hope you read the two replies above this one carefully.
