Hi,
The problem is, in my opinion, that we take the explanations of any established dictionary for granted,
All the major dictionaries I (we?) use are peer reviewed scientific works. Personally, I have slightly more faith (not blind faith, though faith might be a bad choice of words here) in such a work, the result of many specialists working in the same field compiling, comparing, etc., than in a post on (any) message board.
Most, if not all, lexicographers dealing with etymological dictionaries keep in mind a checklist like this
one plus the accumulated knowledge of historical grammar(s) of PIE, IE languages (and, obviously, other language families). I'd love to see your guidelines/checklist (see below).
whereas different dictionaries sometimes do not share the same opinion.
Yes, what's weird about that? That's how it goes and that's how it works. And that's why people always try to double check things. That's what makes linguistics such a dynamic science with a lot of (often animated) discussions and debates.
On the other hand, almost all dictionaries referred to by you and me, use no other linguistic method than comparing phonetic similarities and making guesses.
No other method? Guesses? You're kidding us, aren't you?
Even the whole science of PIE is based on an artificial language created on assumptions.
No, it results in reconstructing PIE, PIE is not the base of the 'whole science'. Maybe you should spend some time on the history of historical linguistics to find out the difference, for example
here.
If we are supposed to take all those things for granted, then we cannot take even a single step forward. The similarities with Sumerian is not limited to "a", it is much more numerous than than, and I am going to provide lots of other examples.
I start to wonder what you mean by "a single step forward": Sumerian roots in PIE languages? You'd consider that a step forwards? Forwards to what?
It has been tried before, people have tried to connect Sumerian with IE languages (or any other language on this planet) and so far all attempts, by professionals and amateurs, have failed any kind of critical test. Maybe that's because there is no connection, apart from a few (?) loans.
But anyway, the only things you will have to do (in a nutshell) are:
1. to come up with a slightly more profound and less naive critique on the comparative method (and the other methods used in comparative historical linguistics);
2. to come up with a slightly more profound and less naive critique on the results of those methods;
3. to suggest a better hypothesis and explain your methodology, but preferably
not a methodology based upon lexical comparisons and highlighting superficial similarities between a bunch of words which are found in word lists or the like;
4. to convince your peer reviewers that your hypothesis holds water and explains (and predicts) more than the current (mainstream) theories.
Good luck!
Groetjes,
Frank
. 
