11-17-2023, 08:50 PM
(11-17-2023, 02:01 PM)Jaska Wrote:Quote:PopGenist82:
"That’s not really the case, apart from debates on what are essentially minutiae (such as ‘how CHG arrived to the steppe’), or overt omissions which have been glaringly obvious to the broader community. In terms of the big picture, each publication adds details to previous rather than upturning."
The same is true also for linguistics. At the same time, there will always be subjects open for different interpretations in linguistics and genetics. This cannot nullify their status as scientific disciplines, because there are also very solid and permanent views and results in those disciplines.
You cannot just pick the most speculative parts of linguistics and judge the whole discipline on that basis. You must compare it to the most speculative parts of genetics. Most importantly, you should first know and understand linguistics, before you could try to criticize it.
P.S. This is off-topic, so perhaps we need to move this discussion to another thread.
We respect & uphold the comparative method; that’s not the issue.