peterkirk at qaya.org
Tue Jul 26 13:46:28 EDT 2005
On 26/07/2005 18:30, Awohili at aol.com wrote:
>Having a working hypothesis is a standard research tool. When the working
>hypothesis is proven by research, this does not render it a "preconceived
>idea" in the negative sense. Of course, if the hypothesis is disproved it is
>discarded (or modified). But if it works, it works.
Solomon, I take your point. If Rolf has taken the two form model as a
working hypothesis, that is fair enough, although he ought to admit to
that clearly. But the problem is that if someone uses a working
hypothesis as part of their research, while they are able to disprove
that hypothesis by finding a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), it is
methodologically impossible to prove a working hypothesis in this way.
One can in principle (within a limited system like biblical Hebrew)
prove that the working hypothesis is consistent with the data, but that
is not proof that it is true in any ontological or predictive sense. To
show this, it is only necessary to realise that two contradictory
working hypotheses might both be consistent with the data.
If one wants to prove a particular position, it is better to start with
the alternative position as a working hypothesis, and look for a
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005
More information about the b-hebrew