Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Is Hittite really IE?
Message-ID: <1995Jan7.220518.27634@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <3ef2kv$m13@mother.usf.edu> <aldersonD1wIvs.JpJ@netcom.com> <3ejs61$99k@mother.usf.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 22:05:18 GMT
Lines: 44

In article <3ejs61$99k@mother.usf.edu> millert@grad.csee.usf.edu (Timothy Miller) writes:

>To be overly technical about it, the Evolutionary theory is no more 
>_provable_ than the Creationist theory.

No more *provable*, but certainly more *scientific*.  There's nothing
wrong with looking in literature and myth for facts which might be
useful in reconstructing something (in this case, genetic affiliation
of languages), but preferring a religious account to one based on
solid scientific principles (in this case, comparative reconstruction)
doesn't make sense.  One book, whether that book is _The Cambridge
Encyclopaedia of Language_ or an English translation of the _Bible_,
does not have all the answers.  

The _Bible_ was combed through for linguistic clues by 19th century
linguists, most of whom were Creationists (thus the name for the
Semitic famliy of languages).  Their work has since been superseded
by the work of later linguists, who have many more sources of infor-
mation at their hands.

>You may not like the Creationism, but some linguists do, and if you are 
>to be completely scientific about Linguistics, then you must allow other 
>scientists to entertain their theories, however implausible they may seem 
>to you, because truth and discovery often come from some of the 
>(alledgedly) most unlikely places.

Only those theories which are scientific.  One which ignores commonly
accepted facts in order to adhere to a self-contradictory account
can hardly be called "scientific" and thus I am under no compunction
to entertain it.  There's quite a difference between being "completely
scientific" and "completely open-minded."

>This is just one of the many things that Linguists disagree about amongst 
>themselves.  Why would you, as a scientist, allow all of those other 
>theories that you disagree with, yet wish to disallow this one?

There is a scientific basis for, for example, the Nostratic hypothesis.
Therfore, I accept it as a hypothesis although I consider it a weak
one.  There is no scientific basis for the Babel hypothesis.  One either
accepts it on faith because it is included in the _Bible_ or not.
-- 
	Daniel "Da" von Brighoff (deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /\
	5242 S. Hyde Park Blvd., Apt. 303		    /__\
	Chicago, IL  60615				   /____\
