shiv wrote:This is what I meant when I said that we need to use that model. Stand on whatever post/pedestal/tower you get and jerk off and let your seed spread far and wide. This is the way of science now.
shiv wrote:A_Gupta wrote:
- Reproducibility is the ability to test a result using independent methods and alternate choices in data processing. This is akin to a different laboratory testing an experimental result or a different climate model showing the same phenomena etc.
- Replicability is the ability to check and rerun the analysis and get the same answer.
This is fundamental to ALL science. For example - a person has the flu and eats chalk and gets better and says "Chalk works'.
Chalk must be tested in 100 patients with flu and should work consistently and work better than say water alone. Reproducibility and replicability.
But when people who call themselves scientists like Vagheesh publish a non peer reviewed paper and publicize it and discuss on Disqus and Twitter they know damn well that they can talk shit because the vast majority of people are not doing science. This has become a common thing in the west with even books being written for the lay public passing off shit as truth. David Anthony's "Horse Wheel and Language" is one such book an David Reich's book (name?) is another. Quick fame by a name of authority, some money earned on the side, and the ability to make shit into truth by spraying your seed all over the public domain.
This is what I meant when I said that we need to use that model. Stand on whatever post/pedestal/tower you get and jerk off and let your seed spread far and wide. This is the way of science now.
.. their umpteen scientific achievements include a very good percentage of "self-flagellation"
A_Gupta wrote:shiv wrote:This is what I meant when I said that we need to use that model. Stand on whatever post/pedestal/tower you get and jerk off and let your seed spread far and wide. This is the way of science now.
Or else the baton of science and knowledge-production is ripe for being grabbed back from the institutions of the West.
Anshuman.Kumar wrote:It only means the Paper is neither here nor there.
It subtly raises the question on association of R1a/R1b to the so called IE languages and also shows that the Yamnaya through the Maykop have probably southern ancestry as MayKop Y Haplogroup profile is very similar to the southern contemporaneous Cultures/Civilization.But it still allows the conclusion that R1a/R1b were native to Steppe/Europe so not much of an effect on the old Order.
shiv wrote:A_Gupta wrote:
Or else the baton of science and knowledge-production is ripe for being grabbed back from the institutions of the West.
In fact this is what I mean. It is possible to publish honest stuff that goes against the crap being thrown at us. But trying to use western portals, western validation and western peer review will not work. We have to use our own portals to have our voices heard.
A_Gupta wrote: Rg Veda, the evidence of the antiquity of which is not written material, but its content, and tradition.
A_Gupta wrote:Tradition is questionable. While this is fundamentally wrong what is the argument you have to offer against it?
The problem is that tradition is malleable. But one should be able to show consistency, e.g., if the archaeologically established material culture and the content of the texts and the traditions are consistent, etc., etc.
Primus wrote:^^
I am reminded of a quote from Sir William Osler that was part of the classic surgical textbook edited by Bailey and Love IIRC (Shiv can pipe in with more on this I am sure):
"He who studies medicine without books sails an uncharted sea, but he who studies medicine without patients does not go to sea at all."
In this context all these 'experts' never sailed the sea at all, i.e. never went to India or met anyone who spoke Sanskrit or was living the life of the Vedas every day. And yet they have had the audacity to lecture the very people who were sailing the sea all the time about what it meant to be a sailor!
It boggles the mind how the world can take the word of these jokers to be the gospel truth.
Suresh S wrote:shiv wrote:In fact this is what I mean. It is possible to publish honest stuff that goes against the crap being thrown at us. But trying to use western portals, western validation and western peer review will not work. We have to use our own portals to have our voices heard.
That bolded part is so important I can not overemphasize it shiv. I have been thinking in my dreams if i get awarded the Noble prize I want to tell these ba**rds where to shove it. In the medical field we must have our own standards , stop attending these western conferences , trying to publish in their Journals etc for starters to be "recognized". And to think of it trying to put FRCS and American Board of Surgery on your name plate prominently to appeal to the mental coolidom of our people.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place.
A_Gupta wrote:On Twitter, manastaramgini:
Indo-Aryans: If we go by mainstream indological models the RV should have been composed in the Panjab no earlier than ~2000-1900 BCE - stretching things to the limit butm more like ~1700 BCE \pm 100 yrs. There are some serious problems with this which have been overlooked. Hence, we conclude that the core RV, meaning a certain archaic kernel of it was definitely composed outside India and probably much earlier even if the final redaction and compilation happened later in India. We see no other way out.
—— this is how “interpretation” works.
shiv wrote:Anshuman Kumar ji, other than me and a few other mice no one has attacked linguistics yet so there has been no sustained attack on linguistics. And as far as my knowledge goes no one else has launched as much of a tirade against linguistics as I have done so please don't imagine things. That we must not be in silos is a banal truism but unless someone joins me in my love affair with linguistics my battle is going to be a lonely one. But I have cast the first or at least one of the earliest stones at that pseudoscience. It has to be done. Linguistics is one of the legs that western worldvoew stands on and it needs to be attacked to see how they will respond. And respond they will, given time.
Nilesh Oak wrote:A_Gupta wrote:On Twitter, manastaramgini:
Indo-Aryans: If we go by mainstream indological models the RV should have been composed in the Panjab no earlier than ~2000-1900 BCE - stretching things to the limit butm more like ~1700 BCE \pm 100 yrs. There are some serious problems with this which have been overlooked. Hence, we conclude that the core RV, meaning a certain archaic kernel of it was definitely composed outside India and probably much earlier even if the final redaction and compilation happened later in India. We see no other way out.
—— this is how “interpretation” works.
This is Vagheesh Narasimhan's interpretation, too.
Vagheesh is also forced to interpret writing of Ramayana and Mahabharata sometime after 1500-2000 BCE in India, based on folk knowledge/memory of Indian continent, but written in Sanskrit (which OF COURSE existed only after 2000 BCE).
When I brought up the nature of Sanskrit names of all character and places of these two epics - he did not realize what I was saying for a while - but then recovered and said the same thing would apply to the names! When I asked what he meant by that.....he was not sure how to solve the problem....so I went into his shoes and asked if he meant, "the writers of the epics began with non-Sanskrit names of actual historical incidents from folk knowledge/memory and converted them to 'Sanskrit' based names ---individuals (Dasharatha, Sahadeva, Krishna, Balarama, Kumhbakarna, Dashagriv, Sugriv and Agastya, etc.) /places (Hastinapur, INdraprastha, Kurukshetra,Ayodhya etc.) /rivers (Sarasvati, Yamuna, Iravati, Narmada, etc.) /mountains (Himavat, Mahendra, etc.)/ etc---- before transcribing......He said, "Yes".
Fun times ahead!
A_Gupta wrote:On Twitter, manastaramgini:
Indo-Aryans: If we go by mainstream indological models the RV should have been composed in the Panjab no earlier than ~2000-1900 BCE - stretching things to the limit butm more like ~1700 BCE \pm 100 yrs. There are some serious problems with this which have been overlooked. Hence, we conclude that the core RV, meaning a certain archaic kernel of it was definitely composed outside India and probably much earlier even if the final redaction and compilation happened later in India. We see no other way out.
—— this is how “interpretation” works.
A_Gupta wrote:On Twitter, manastaramgini:
Indo-Aryans: If we go by mainstream indological models .blah blah blah
Nilesh Oak wrote:
This is Vagheesh Narasimhan's interpretation, too.
Vagheesh is also forced to interpret writing of Ramayana and Mahabharata sometime after 1500-2000 BCE in India, based on folk knowledge/memory of Indian continent, but written in Sanskrit (which OF COURSE existed only after 2000 BCE).
When I brought up the nature of Sanskrit names of all character and places of these two epics - he did not realize what I was saying for a while - but then recovered and said the same thing would apply to the names! When I asked what he meant by that.....he was not sure how to solve the problem....so I went into his shoes and asked if he meant, "the writers of the epics began with non-Sanskrit names of actual historical incidents from folk knowledge/memory and converted them to 'Sanskrit' based names ---individuals (Dasharatha, Sahadeva, Krishna, Balarama, Kumhbakarna, Dashagriv, Sugriv and Agastya, etc.) /places (Hastinapur, INdraprastha, Kurukshetra,Ayodhya etc.) /rivers (Sarasvati, Yamuna, Iravati, Narmada, etc.) /mountains (Himavat, Mahendra, etc.)/ etc---- before transcribing......He said, "Yes".
Fun times ahead!
The guy doesn't realize what a self-goal he scored? He doesn't seem very bright, probably just a tool in somebody else's hand (Witzel comes to mind, like you said). Nice job nudging him along.There are many generalizations and modifications to PCA that go far beyond what has been presented here. The first step in generalizing probabilistic PCA is factor analysis, which includes estimation of variance parameters in each coordinate. Since it is rare that “noise” in data will be the same in each coordinate, factor analysis is almost always a better idea than PCA (although the numerical algorithms are more complicated). In other words, I just explained PCA in detail, now I’m saying don’t use it!
Perhaps more importantly, there are issues in using PCA that I have not discussed. A big one is how to choose the PCA dimension to project to in analysis of high-dimensional data. But I am stopping here as I am certain no one is reading at this far into the post anyway
n summary: i) when analyzing data with a spatial covariance structure, PCA produces highly structured results relating to sinusoidal functions of increasing frequency; ii) in as far as PCA results depend on the details of a particular data set, they are affected by factors in addition to the actual underlying spatial population structure, such as the distribution of sampling locations and the amount of data available. These conclusions are supported not only by the results we present here, but by extensive empirical results from other fields where PCA has been applied to spatial data, including pattern analysis of natural images [28], ecology [23] and climatology [25, 29, 30, 31].
Both features i) and ii) above limit the utility of PCA to draw inferences about underlying processes, a fact previously noted in climatology ([25, 29, 30, 31]). In particular, interpreting gradient and wave-like patterns in PC-maps as signatures of historical migration events is problematic because such patterns arise quite generally under a simple condition: that genetic similarity decays with distance. This finding has important implications for interpretation of PCA in population genetics generally, and for Cavalli-Sforza et al’s PCA analyses in particular. Not only is this simple condition likely to be satisfied under many possible models, but, since Cavalli-Sforza et al used spatial interpolation to estimate allele frequencies, their data could satisfy this condition even if absent in the underlying allele frequencies [6, 8]. (Indeed use of interpolation may partly explain the striking similarity between Cavalli-Sforza et al’s PC-maps and those predicted by theory, particularly in Asia where their analysis was based on fewer samples. That said, recent analyses of European data without interpolation also show perpendicular gradients in PC1 and PC2 [32].)
Regarding the specific question of a Neolithic expansion in Europe, we emphasize this paper is not about whether or not such an expansion occurred; a full consideration of this would require a synthesis of multiple types of evidence from many diverse sources (see review in [33] and e.g. [34, 35, 9, 36, 37, 38, 39]). It is true that the NW-SE slope of the PC1 gradient in Europe suggests that this may be the direction of greatest genetic variation in Europe (although a careful analysis would have to take account of the fact that other factors, including the shape of the continent, could also influence the slope direction). However, if a Neolithic expansion could explain this, it is but one of many possible explanations.
For another example of how our results aid interpretation of PCA, consider the data from Linz et al [13] who found that PC-maps from Heliobactor pylori show similar patterns to those in Cavalli-Sforza et al’s human data and who use this as part of an argument that genetic patterns of H. pylori reflect a shared migrational history with humans. There are good reasons to suspect genetic variation in H. pylori will have been influenced by human migrations. However our results show that similar patterns in PC-maps of two groups does not imply a shared migrationary history; indeed, if each group shows an underlying spatial covariance structure, then similar patterns will often occur in the top few PC-maps even if their histories are independent (e.g. fig. S1).
We can also make simple, non-asymptotic statements, such as: If the environment is a square and migration only local, then by symmetry the North-South and East-West eigenvalues should be similar
shiv wrote:We are actually jackasses because no one asks the geneticist which genes code for language. When you ask them they will point to linguists/archaeology papers and say 'Language migration has been demonstrated by linguists who tell us that PIE was in steppe and those people moved to India and Iran, creating Indo-Iranian language first and later Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit"
Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”