Time to ask why
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why does their model still persist? Why do indologists not reconsider the fundamental premise of their theory? Though they have retracted the Aryan Invasion and have been forced to give up large scale migrations (to the point where, at present, one must imagine tiny bands of Aryan entrants to have silently crept into India, wiped out all records of their presence and interactions there, and then disappeared or died out without passing on their genes), they refuse to reformulate or even re-evaluate their basic assumption.
Why? What are the reason(s) governing indology's non-self-critical approach when dealing with counter-evidence from other sciences?
As we have seen, linguistics has historically been, and continues to be, motivated by concerns that are not always scientific. What motivations are driving IE linguistics and indology research today?
  * Is it inertia? Are they unwilling to sift through the material that laid the foundations of IE research in the last 150 years of the field? Or are they, unlike real scientists [52], so sure of the inerrancy of their framework that they are unwilling to re-evaluate it, its assumptions and central premise?
  * Has the IE world-view come to define the very identity of the west? Has their view of their past and their origins become so intimately tied up with the Indo-European framework? (See also [53])
  * Are there other motivations propping up the IE framework today, just like there was during the period of British imperialism when the AIT served its purpose? [54]
<b>
Indians today need to reconsider whether they should so whole-heartedly base their entire world-view upon a model whose very premise remains unverified and unverifiable. [55]</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These questions need to be answered here. In this very thread on UNMASKING AIT
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why does their model still persist? Why do indologists not reconsider the fundamental premise of their theory? Though they have retracted the Aryan Invasion and have been forced to give up large scale migrations (to the point where, at present, one must imagine tiny bands of Aryan entrants to have silently crept into India, wiped out all records of their presence and interactions there, and then disappeared or died out without passing on their genes), they refuse to reformulate or even re-evaluate their basic assumption.
Why? What are the reason(s) governing indology's non-self-critical approach when dealing with counter-evidence from other sciences?
As we have seen, linguistics has historically been, and continues to be, motivated by concerns that are not always scientific. What motivations are driving IE linguistics and indology research today?
  * Is it inertia? Are they unwilling to sift through the material that laid the foundations of IE research in the last 150 years of the field? Or are they, unlike real scientists [52], so sure of the inerrancy of their framework that they are unwilling to re-evaluate it, its assumptions and central premise?
  * Has the IE world-view come to define the very identity of the west? Has their view of their past and their origins become so intimately tied up with the Indo-European framework? (See also [53])
  * Are there other motivations propping up the IE framework today, just like there was during the period of British imperialism when the AIT served its purpose? [54]
<b>
Indians today need to reconsider whether they should so whole-heartedly base their entire world-view upon a model whose very premise remains unverified and unverifiable. [55]</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These questions need to be answered here. In this very thread on UNMASKING AIT