The conclusion shown above is in a crying contradiction with the theory of A. Sauvageot and many other contributors to the hypothesis of common origin of the Ural-Altaic languages, so I have now to show what mechanism produces this theory.
We have already seen that the idea of the common origin of these languages did not result from the comparative analysis of the material, but it did come out of a general conception of language and prevailing ideas on evolution of cultural and biological (in a narrow sense) phenomena which were used as scientific guide. In this respect, the history of the Ural-Altaic hypothesis is very instructive, indeed. We will not go into the details of this history, which is known from works of other writers on this subject. It will suffice to point out that during the last and the present century there were several groups of evidences proposed and rejected. So, for instance, the original proof of common origin — the vocalic harmony — could not stand the criticism and appeared at last as a particular case of phonetic fashion in different degree affecting the languages here discussed without being a general phenomenon [136]. Another serious attempt was made by using the morphological elements as evidence of common origin, but after a minute analysis of facts, it had to give place to the evidences of lexic complex of these languages. What is typical of this situation is the persistence of a tendency to find proofs in spite of previous attempts which subsequently failed. This may be understood as due to the desire of finding conditioned by certain factors lying beyond the linguistic facts. Such a factor was the idea of an organic evolution of cultural phenomena as one opposite to the ideas prevailing during the previous period. So the linguistic facts were brought forth as evidence or even a simple illustration for proving a preexisting idea, a theory. When the facts appeared to have been insufficient or inconsistent, other facts were brought forth maintaining the same idea and with the same success. The failure of these attempts and change of kinds of proofs result from two sets of conditions; namely, an impartial scientific analysis of evidences based chiefly upon the general theory of linguistics in front of which the evidences brought forth cannot be regarded as valid ones, and a critical attitude, which is not limited by the prevailing ideas as to the evolution of cultural phenomena. Both of them belong to the mechanism of «growth» of science and knowledge in general without which the science could not exist as a cultural phenomenon well adapted to the needs of ever-changing ethnical units (societies). In this respect, the «conservative» minds (the minds that simply stick to the existing ethnographical complexes and particular conceptions show a very typical attitude) are particularly hostile to the methodological and theoretical criticism and treatment of the problems and make, as, for instance, A. Sauvageot does, an appeal against polemique verbale, call for the facts and insist upon receiving other explanations if his own are rejected. As a modus operandi it calls to mind the old discussion of the evolutionists with the protagonists of the old theories of whom the latter requested the first ones «to deal with the facts» and «to explain.»
136. This problem is not yet cleared up and the phenomenon is not yet thoroughly investigated. The lack of historic data is one of the great hindrances for making np the picture of the process.