on the epistemological nature of historical linguistics...

[Richard M. Alderson III]

Gonzalo Rubio wrote:
 
>However, one may wonder why so many of these well-intentioned ladies and
>gentlemen share their speculations with the scientific community almost
>*only* in our field(s). Scholars working on Quantum Physics, Psychology,
>or even History, don't have to deal with this deluge of "proposals" from
>outsiders or amateurs.
 
I would like simply to note that this appears not to be true, based on the
content of certain Usenet newsgroups.  While many people equate "Usenet" with
"sex pictures" and "massive cross-posting of unwanted commercials", there are
many newsgroups still devoted to serious discussion of topics in physics,
history, archaeology, and even psychology.  (I have to admit that I have never
spent any time in this last newsgroup, so what I have to say does not pertain
thereto.)
 
There are equivalent kinds of nonsense posted regarding Velikovskyan astronomy,
Atlantean archaeology & history, and faster-than-light/time-travel physics, all
greeted with the same incredulity by practitioners of those fields as we greet
linguistic nonsense--and there are those who attempt to reason with the posters
as well as those who swear that the mainstream is trying to keep the "truth"
from the public.  I used to do this in the area of historical linguistics; life
is simply too short, after a while.
 
So I would say no, there is no field that does not have its equivalent set of
amateurs dead set on converting the world to some revealed truth or other.
 
                                                                Rich Alderson