Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Mon Apr 15 05:57:00 EDT 2002
Rolf, my whole point is that one (alleged) counter-example is not enough
to discredit a hypothesis. Even 3-4% are not. So I won't waste my time
on individual counter-examples. Anyway, I am discussing methodology not
specific hypotheses. And I've forgotten which example we are talking
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf Furuli [mailto:furuli at online.no]
> Sent: 15 April 2002 08:11
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: Hebrew Syntax.
> Dear Peter,
> Nobody has so far analysed my example. could you please do that.
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
> >Moon, may I answer you here as one also trained originally in science
> >and who then worked as an engineer. In most branches of science, if a
> >hypothesis has a 96% or 97% fit with the observed facts (as here),
> >general truth of that hypothesis is considered rather strongly
> >indicated. Of course one then needs to look at the remaining results.
> >They may be spurious or corrupted (cf. here the text may be corrupt);
> >but one would need to look into whether that is reasonable. Or one
> >find that this small residue of results can be accounted for by
> >adjustments to the hypothesis. Sometimes it might be necessary to
> >the hypothesis as incomplete and uncertain because a residue of
> >has not been accounted for. But I am sure no scientist would reject a
> >hypothesis completely because of a 3-4% discrepancy.
> >Peter Kirk
More information about the b-hebrew