|
|
|
|
|
by WaxProlix
4194 days ago
|
|
When you have one data source and only a handful of data points and that data is not reproducible, you're not doing science. Everett might have some interesting hypotheses, but what he's doing isn't what you could call peer-reviewable. Linguists who have aspirations towards hard science will, for that reason alone (not to mention the theoretically tenuous/unpopular nature of his claims) dismiss him pretty quickly. |
|
Coming up with crazy ideas based on some strange observations is a part of science too.