Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Awohili AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS
  • Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:46:28 +0100

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 contradiction.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page