I have some spare time, so I will respond here.
Red wrote:Context is everything.
I said "Both Jebus and BrimstoneSalad (in his latest post in the thread) admitted that my knowledge of linguistics is impressive. It's just that, if you keep insisting that sound laws are somehow not falsifiable, there is not much more to talk about.". So, it should have been obvious to any reasonable person I was using the term "sound law" to mean a type of a linguistic law, which is also the only sense of the term the dictionary cites.
So, no, you can't just say you misunderstood me because of the context. This "misunderstanding" is also hardly explicable as you being unaware of the 5th-grade linguistics (unless you were also unaware that the term "law" is used in linguistics the way it's used in most sciences), the simplest explanation is that you were intentionally misrepresenting me. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
That's not really relevant. If that doesn't represent your position, then perhaps you should try harder to explain your position, rather than argue about my reading skills.
Red wrote:For your convenience, I will copy and paste some of the key points made.
Most of the points there are nonsense, and even BrimstoneSalad admitted that recently.
Red wrote:I try to find value in all fields of knowledge.
So, you are saying linguistics isn't a real science and isn't valuable? Then practice what you preach and stop using all the machine translation software, optical character recognition software, speech recognition software and everything else brought to you by linguistics.
You are being worse than a creationist here. Creationists at least draw that (nonexistant) distinction between historical science and experimental science, you are not even doing that.
Legitimate criticism of science requires a basic understanding of it. You don't need to be a PhD linguist to legitimately criticize linguistics, but you can't legitimately criticize linguistics if you are unaware of the 5th-grade linguistics (as you, Red, seem to be).
Red wrote:Maybe you can help harden linguistics so it won't be a soft science anymore?
If you are talking about the Croatian toponyms, the main reason that field is softer than many fields of linguistics is because the reasearch there is often done by people who don't understand linguistics at all. I tried to publish a paper mathematically modelling the Croatian toponyms, but my paper was rejected as unclear... without having been reviewed by an actual linguist. The papers about Croatian toponyms are, in many journals, reviewed by ethnologists and historians, who are convinced they understand how languages work (and how science works), but they don't even have the vocabulary needed to discuss that. And that's what makes it difficult to "harden" that field of study.
Also, let's be honest, it's quite possible that the way I mathematically modelled the Croatian toponyms is very flawed and that it would, if published, just poison that field even more. My calculations could be misleading, to me, and even more so to the historians who "study" the Croatian toponyms, since they may not realize how dubious the assumptions I made when mathematically modelling the toponyms are.
See the problem now?
In other words, I am dealing with a bunch of people who, just like you, don't understand the basic linguistics and know so much that isn't so.