Original sentence: Furthermore, by using mass comparison, Ruhlen makes his data unfalsifiable.Historical linguists argue that most results turned up with mass comparison could easily be cases of simple coincidence.If he were to develope regular phonological correspondences between languages as in mainstream historical linguistics, than it would be possible to find examples which violated these correspondences, thus falsifying the hypothesis.Most mainstream historical linguists believe that Ruhlen's assumptions and methodology are unsound and unfounded, and think that there is simply no possible way to reconstruct a language that would had to have been spoken at least 30,000 years ago, and most probably many thousands of years before that.Ruhlen and his followers reply that the sheer volume of the correspondences which their mass comparisons have turned up is far too large to possibly be due to chance.Ruhlen is an extremely controversial figure in the linguistics community, from which he has been all but ostracized, due to his vocal support of the Proto World Hypothesis, which claims that all the extant languages of the world can be traced back to a single proto-language, and that this proto-language can be accurately reconstructed.The majority of criticisms of Ruhlen center around his use of mass comparison, which instead of using common historical linguistic methods of comparison, involves comparing the lexicons of however many languages one is investigating and examining them for words in two or more languages which appear similar phonologically and have a similar meaning.They insist that even if many of the results were chance similarities, it is beyond belief that there could be so many similarities.This is impossible to do with Ruhlen's data, however, which makes linguists skeptical