Being a complete autodidact, for decades I have been doing independent research in the field of ethnology based on my own graphic-analytical method, first described in 1987 in the article "The Determination of Habitats of Ancient Slavs by a Graphic-Analytical Method" in the magazine "Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The Series of Literature and Language. Volume LXIV:1, Moscow" (in Russian). However farther for more complete reconstruction of prehistoric ethnogenetic processes, other scientific materials, except for comparative linguistics, are used such as maps, archeological data, historical sources, mythology, onomastics, ethnography, toponymy. I would willingly engaged in this great work with a group of like-minded people of different professions, then the work would be made faster, the results come readers more efficiently and caused more confidence. Each science develops by collective efforts of many researchers, while individual work, even aforesaid by novelty, will always look out amateurish in the eyes of professionals. Unfortunately, I could not inspire interest of scientific world by my research and findings despite made efforts. Now, following in the linguistics and archeology over the internet, I have impression that I live on another planet. Despite the fact that some of my work has been published, I've never met links or criticism to them. Now I submit the results of my research on this site, but serious scientists do not look here. Linguistics, and, especially, archeology develop in a roundabout way and I even wonder whether those problem issues of ethnogenesis, which have been resolved by my method, would be once resolved otherwise.
While the realm of human interests does not have and cannot have any restrictions, any science is developing successfully, if brings specific benefits and enriches our knowledge about man and the world. In our pragmatic time more attention is paid to the natural sciences, but historical knowledge is more intended for self-knowledge of humanity and has in this its value. At the same time, archeology, closely connected with the study of material evidence of the past, does not lose interest among the general public. As for linguistics, it is now in such state that some of its branches cannot even answer the question, why do they even need. Such question arises after acquaintance with themes of works of many contemporary researchers not only at ordinary people but also rectors of Universities in limited funding. Although some linguists understand that "without a past, no future", their perceptions of the past have mostly hypothetical and sometimes mythological character, because were hastily formed even in the years when linguistics was used for political purposes and had no effective methods of research. Therefore, without a solid foundation of historical truth it cannot provide specific recommendations to humanity worrying about its future, and for many it is obvious.
As a policy tool, linguistics is influenced by ideological attitudes formed on the pseudo-scientific foundations and perceived by society. On the other hand, the linguistics, becoming a closed guild, does not accept new ideas from outside, which can turn into dust results of efforts of traditionalists during many years. Thus, there are some forces, which, for various reasons, are interested in long-term preservation of ruling false theories and these forces inhibit penetrating new ideas into the linguistics. In this case, freedom of expression has no really matter because you have to be still heard and understood. On the other hand, a new idea or theory can be criticized mercilessly or swept under the carpet, and its author can be represented as an amateur, a dreamer or even mentally ill man. This situation is, if not only one of the evidences of moral decadence of modern society, then, at least, characterizes its moral underdevelopment
In order not åo finish on this sad note, we can only express the hope that the awareness of the crisis not only of modern linguistics, but the whole of human knowledge in general will make the next generation of scientists turn toward new methods of research and eventually defeat reaction and conservatism.
We can not say that the humanities absolutely refuse accurate research methods. Talking about the use of mathematics in linguistics goes not less than a hundred years, but it is a tribute to the time. Characteristic in this respect is the subtitle "On the possibilities and limits of "exact methods" in the humanities" to one of the articles dealing with this problem. As if the author doesn't reject such a possibility, though with a caveat about the boundaries, but the poetic title of the article "You do not have numbers and measures" and in quotes taken "exact methods" betrays hidden skepticism about their effectivity in this sensitive area of sdcience (SHAPIR M.I. 2005: 43-62).
To say that scientific progress in linguistics will soon prevail, there is no reason to. It is still not seen to meet an understanding of the logic of arguments, like this:
… the laws of nature and the laws in the humanitarian sphere, are not significantly different from each other, so that, contrary to the opinion of M.I. Shapir (and many of its influential predecessors), between the natural sciences and the humanities have no "abyss". Anyone who denies the possibility of studying laws in the world of the creations of the human spirit by exact methods, will be forced, if he will conduct a thorough analysis of the logic of his arguments, come to the conclusion that laws of nature, too, are being impossible to study by precise methods (GLADKIY A.V. 2007: 35)