[b-hebrew] Lev 21:18 - Passive Participle
kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Oct 31 13:05:56 EST 2005
It was in logic that I first heard the argument that it is a
fallacy to assume that a lack of evidence merely means
that we lack evidence of something that exists. Rather we
must leave open the possibility that a lack of evidence is
evidence of lack, that that something does not exist. In the
latter case, lack of evidence is a positive (of a negation)
not a negative (don't have the data).
When there is positive evidence from within a language
contrasted to positive evidence from a cognate language,
I claim that internal evidence trumps cognate language
evidence all the time.
In the case of XRM, I see positive evidence that one basic
meaning fits all uses, therefore there is no evidence for
more than one root and none needed, therefore the lack
of evidence is evidence of lack, i.e. that there was no more
than one root used in Biblical Hebrew.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> On 31/10/2005 15:29, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > ...
> > There are times when absence of evidence is a lack, i.e. that a
> > certain phenomenon existed but that we have yet to find evidence
> > for it, and other times when it is evidence of lack, i.e. that
> > the looked for phenomenon was never there in the first place.
> > This is one of the cases IMO of the latter.
> But surely direct evidence of a phenomenon must always trump any
> argument from lack of evidence!
> But as you say, it seems that we are unlikely to reach any
> resolution of such matters as long as you refuse to accept the
> usual rules of logic concerning evidence.
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
More information about the b-hebrew